SAROJ KUMAR DASH,DEBAGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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 54 days and 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.