ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. TECHNOSYS INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the additions made by the AO based on a circular not applicable to 'Complete Scrutiny' cases. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The Assessee reported a turnover of Rs. 251,97,81,810/- and total income of Rs. 12,50,95,220/-. The case was selected for 'Complete Scrutiny', and the AO made additions leading to an assessed income of Rs. 17,44,53,906/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in quashing additions made by the AO on the ground of lack of prior approval, when the case was selected for 'Complete Scrutiny'?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
The present Appeal and the Cross Objection are filed by the Department of Revenue and the Assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal/National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ for short] dated 01/07/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020- 21.
Brief facts of the case are that, during the year under consideration, the Assessee reported the turnover of Rs. 251,97,81,810/- and total income at Rs. 12,50,95,220/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ and an assessment order came to be passed on 28/09/2022 by computing income of the Assessee at Rs. 17,44,53,906/- by making certain disallowances.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/09/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 01/07/2024, allowed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground that ‘the A.O. made addition other than the issues covered by selection criteria/CASS without prior approval of higher authority’. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. has travelled beyond his jurisdiction. Accordingly, quashed the additions made by the A.O.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 01/07/2024, the Department of Revenue preferred the captioned Appeal. The Assessee has also filed Cross Objection by raising both technical as well as grounds on the merit of the case.
The Ld. Department's Representative taken us through the assessment order and contended that the case of the Assessee was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’, however, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the CBDT Circular dated 08/09/2010, which is applicable to the scrutiny on the basis of data in AIR. The Ld. Department's Representative further submitted that since the case of the Assessee was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’, there is no requirement on the part of the A.O. to take any approval from the higher authorities in order to frame the Assessment Order. Thus, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the on erroneous finding thus, submitted that Appeal of the Revenue is liable to be allowed.
Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative addressing on the grounds of the Cross-Objection and also against the Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) requires no interference and by relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Revenue and sought for allowing the Cross-Objection.
6.We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only ground cited by the Ld. CIT(A) for quashing the additions made in the assessment order that,‘the A.O. made additions other than the issues covered by selection criteria/CASS without prior approval of higher authorities’. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. has transferred beyond his jurisdiction. It can be seen from the assessment order itself the case of the Assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny for the reason ‘claim of large value of refund’.
Since, it is the case of the Complete Scrutiny, the Circular of CBDT dated 08/09/2010 is not applicable. As per the said Circular, A.O. is not required to take any approval from the higher authorities. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in quashing the additions made by the A.O. Therefore, the order impugned of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby quashed and the matter remand to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeal on its merit. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
C.O No. 98/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21)
Since, we have quashed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we reserve liberty to the Assessee to urge all the contentions both legal as well as on the merit before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the same in accordance with law.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
