SHRI VINAY CHAURASIA,CHHATARPUR vs. P. CIT, GWALIOR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not broaden the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. The AO had duly examined the capital introduction, and the other issues were outside the original scope of scrutiny. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits. The Pr. CIT invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, alleging the AO failed to examine capital introduction, interest income, and potential invocation of Section 2(22)(e). The assessee provided explanations for these issues.
What were the issues?
Whether the Pr. CIT can invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 to direct examination of issues beyond the limited scope of the original assessment. Whether the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue when issues were outside the limited scrutiny.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HONBLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 vide impugned order dated 21-03-2016 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 11-02-2014. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under.
Upon perusal of Para-2 of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee's return of income was selected for limited scrutiny in order to verify the sources of cash deposit in savings bank account as per AIR information. The Ld. AO framed an assessment on 11-02- 2014 after making addition of suppressed sale and disallowance of expenses. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, alleged that there was credit entry of Rs.50 Lacs in the capital account which remained to be examined by Ld. AO. Another observation was that differential of interest income as credited in capital account was to be brought to tax. Thirdly, the assessee being a shareholder in M/s Peptech Housing Pvt. Ltd. took loan from the said entity for Rs.42.75 Lacs and Ld. AO failed to explore the possibility of invoking the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e). The assessee opposed the same on the ground that credit in capital account represents contribution by a member of Joint Venture entity which was formed to bid tenders for obtaining excise contracts from MP government. The differential of interest of Rs.0.63 Lacs was stated to be not received. On the issue of Sec. 2(22)(e), it was stated by the assessee that the assessee was rather a creditor in M/s Peptech Housing Pvt. Ltd. and moreover, the assessee was not holding any share in that entity during the year. However, rejecting the same, Ld. Pr. CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh order on three issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
At the outset, it could be observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the source of cash deposit. The issue of interest income and invocation of Sec.2(22)(e) was not subject matter of limited scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, no infirmity could be attributed to the assessment framed by Ld. AO on the ground that he failed to deal with other issues which did not fall in the realm of the limited reason for which the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings. In other words, Ld. Pr. CIT, in the garb of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263, could not be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with Ld. AO while framing the assessment. The revisionary jurisdiction could not be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that stood vested with Ld. AO while framing the assessment. As a matter of fact, which could not be done directly could not be done indirectly. Accordingly, the assessment could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on these two issues. So far as the capital introduction in cash is concerned, it could be seen that the case was scrutinized specifically to examine the source of cash deposit. The same was duly verified by Ld. AO with due application of mind. Secondly, the assessee had duly explained the sources of capital contribution of Rs.50 Lacs which fact has not been rebutted in the impugned order. Under these circumstances, the impugned revisionary order is liable to be quashed. We order so. The assessment as framed by Ld. AO stand restored back. Delving into other arguments has been rendered academic in nature.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22.04.2025 (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेख सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आदेश की प्रतिलिपि □ ग्रेषित / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT 4. विभागीयप्रतिनिधि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AGRA
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026