KAKARLA VISHNU SRINIVASA RAO,GANAPAVARM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member :
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049624886(1), dated 10/02/2023
2 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act,
dated 26/04/2021 for the AY 2018-19.
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Fish
Commission Agent and acts as a middleman between farmer and
market person for which he receives commission. The assessee
filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 25/10/2018
admitting total income of Rs. 46,15,390/-. Subsequently, the
case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verifying
“cash deposits”. A notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act and a detailed
questionnaire through a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued
and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee filed the
required details before the Ld. AO. Considering the submissions
made by the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has
made cash payments exceeding the limits prescribed U/s. 40A(3)
of the Act and hence the Ld. AO treated the cash withdrawals of
Rs. 84,60,669/- as disallowance U/s. 40A(3) of the Act and added
to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the
Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee contested in his
written submissions that the Ld. AO has travelled beyond the
limited scrutiny proceedings and converted it into a full scrutiny
proceedings without permission from the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ld.
CIT(A)-NFAC rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee
and therefore confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by dismissing the
appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the
assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds
of appeal:
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment order passed in the case of appellant U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act on the ground that no notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 84,80,669/- made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance U/s. 40A(3) of the Act as beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2, and Ground No.3, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 84,80,669/- made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance U/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5.
Grounds No. 1 and 5 are general in nature and need no
adjudication.
Ground No.2 being a legal ground was not pressed by the
Ld. AR.
With respect to Grounds No. 3 & 4 where a disallowance
U/s. 40A(3) was made for Rs. 84,80,669/-, the Ld. AR argued
4 that the Ld. AO has travelled beyond his powers in verifying the
cash withdrawals where the case was selected under CASS for
Limited Scrutiny for the purpose of verifying the cash deposits
into the bank account of the assessee. The Ld. AR vehemently
argued that the Ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make disallowance
U/s. 40A(3) of the Act without converting the assessment into
complete scrutiny proceedings. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded
that the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld.
CIT(A)-NFAC be deleted.
Per contra, the Ld. DR fully supported the orders of the Ld.
Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material
available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue
Authorities. It is a fact that the case was selected for scrutiny for
the purpose of verifying the huge cash deposits into the bank
account by the assessee. The Ld.AO has travelled beyond his
jurisdiction in verifying the cash withdrawals without converting
the case into complete scrutiny as per the directions issued by
the Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. The Ld. AO in para
7.5 of his order has stated that the assessee himself accepted the
cash withdrawals for paying the fishermen. The Ld. AO therefore
disallowed the same U/s. 40A(3) of the Act since it is not covered
5 under the exceptions prescribed under Rule 6DD of the IT Rules,
1962. However, we find that the Ld. AO has not taken approval
from the Ld. Pr. CIT for verification of the cash withdrawals
which is beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny for which the
assessee’s case is opened for the purpose of verification of the
huge cash deposits into the bank account of the assessee. There
is no dispute by the Ld. AO regarding the satisfaction of the cash
deposits for which the limited scrutiny purpose was initiated. As
far as the limited scrutiny proceedings are concerned, the
scrutiny has to be limited to the parameters selected for the
purpose of scrutiny only to the specific issues and not beyond
that under any circumstances. In case, if the Ld. AO wants to
take up the case for complete scrutiny, first the Ld. AO has to
convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny case and then
he may take up the case for complete scrutiny with the prior
approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT / CIT concerned after being satisfied
about the issue of converting it into a complete scrutiny. In the
instant case, we find that no such approval has been granted to
the Ld. AO to travel beyond the verification of the cash deposits.
The Ld. AO also not found any material against the assessee with
respect to the cash deposits into the bank accounts of the
assessee. In view of the above discussions, we find that the Ld.
6 AO has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in disallowing the cash withdrawals being payments made to various fishermen by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act is not valid in law and therefore we are inclined to quash the order passed by the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act and allow the Grounds No.3 and 4 raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 15th June, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�डी) (एस बालाकृ�णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) �या�यकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 15.06.2023 OKK - SPS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- �नधा�रती/ The Assessee – Kakarla Vishnu Srinivasa Rao, 2, Main 1. Road, Ganapavaram, Andhra Pradesh – 534198. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Office4r, Aayakar Bhavan, 2. Sajjapuram, Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh – 534211. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, �वशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, 5. Visakhapatnam गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
