AMAR SHOE AND LEATHER WEARS,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 93/AGR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 February 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed on limited scrutiny, yet the disallowance was not part of the limited scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arose against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC. The assessment proceedings were initiated under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Validity of the assessment order passed under limited scrutiny when the disallowance was not part of the limited scrutiny.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 13.02.2024Pronounced: 13.02.2024

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052213697(1) dated 20.04.2023, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2017 itself once it was an instance of “limited scrutiny” on various issues whereas only the assessee’s expenditure stood disallowed by learned lower authorities. The Revenue fails to dispute this expenditure disallowance nowhere formed subject matter of “limited scrutiny”.

4.

That being the clinching fact, we quote PCIT v/s Weilburger Coatings (P) Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 580(Cal) to quash the impugned assessment for this precise reason.

5.

All other pleadings stand rendered academic.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in very terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 13TH February, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →