Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appeals were initially barred by limitation but the delay was condoned. The AO made an addition concerning purchases, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of purchases was not part of the limited scrutiny. Furthermore, the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the Pr.CIT before making the addition. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was liable to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO, without prior approval of Pr.CIT and beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, is sustainable? Whether the penalty levied under section 271AAC is sustainable when the quantum addition is deleted?
Sections Cited
271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17/10/2024 & 07/11/2024 passed for the assessment year 2017- 2018. 2. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee in is barred by 27 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respective delay in both the appeals is condoned and both appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessment of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in regard to large cash deposited in the bank account during the year. It was the submission that the said issue was examined by the AO and the AO had accepted the transaction. It was further submitted that, however, without taking the necessary approval from the concerned Pr.CIT, the AO has made the addition in respect of payments made to the suppliers allegedly which has not been recorded in the books of accounts. It was the submission that this was not an issue which is a part of limited scrutiny nor was it an issue connected with the limited scrutiny and no approval from the concerned Pr.CIT had been taken. It was the submission that the addition made is liable to be deleted. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shark Mines & Minerals, reported in 151 taxmann.com 71 (Orissa HC), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the revisionary power u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked to find fault in the assessment order on the ground that it is erroneous, especially when the issue was not covered in the limited scrutiny.
In reply, ld. SR. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the reason for the assessment is limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposited in the bank account during the year. The addition made by the AO is in respect of certain purchases. The assessee has also filed reconciliation for the purchases, which reads as follows :-
In any case, as the issue of purchases was not the reason for limited scrutiny and as the AO has not taken the prior approval of the ld. Pr.CIT before making this addition in the limited scrutiny assessment, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be