Naga Dhunseri Group Ltd., Kolkata V. P.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

ITA 370/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7044 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOULEN HANGSHING
• Keywords: Revision of order; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 6; 263; 143(3); 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NO.370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 1 | P A GE , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 370/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. (PAN: AABCN 0997 R) VS. PCIT-2, KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) 21.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.01.2021 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI AKKAL DUDHWEWALA, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI GOULEN HANGSHING, CIT ORDER PER SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT-2, KOLKATA DATED 18.03.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-1 6 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE S HRI AKKAL DUDHWEWALA ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE LD. PCIT TO INTERFERE IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 18.12.2017 FOR AY 2015-16 BY EXERCISING HIS R EVISIONAL JURISDICTION CONTENDED THAT THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN INVOKING THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT AS CONTE MPLATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. A.R, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PCIT IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION HAS TO BE QUA SHED. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R, IN THIS CASE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS WHICH FACT CAN BE DISCERNED FROM PAGE 9 OF PB-I AN D HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 21.03.2016 U/S 1 43(2) OF THE ACT INFORMING THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUT INY UNDER CASS. THEREAFTER THE LD. A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 89 OF PB-II WHEREIN CASS REASON FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY ITA NO.370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 2 | P A GE SELECTION IN ASSESSEES CASE IS GIVEN. FROM A PERUS AL OF THE SAME, WE NOTE THAT THE REASON FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS FOR THREE ITEMS; I) INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN NBFC/INVESTMENT COMPA NY II) LARGE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 57 OF THE ACT III) MISMATCH OF AMOUNT PAID TO RELATED PERSONS U/S 40A(2)(B) REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR. 3. THIS FACT OF LIMITED SCRUTINY ON THESE THREE ITE MS ARE ALSO DISCERNIBLE FROM PERUSAL OF PAGE 10 AND 11 OF PB-I WHICH IS THE COPY OF NOTICE SENT BY THE AO U/S 142(1) DATED 28.01.2017 AND IT IS NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS REPLIED TO THE NOTICE OF AO VIDE LETTER DATED 25.10.2017 AND 13.11.2017 WHI CH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 17 AND 18 OF THE PB ALONG WITH ANNEXURES 1 & 2. AND THE AO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AND REPLIES ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 18.12.2017 WHEREIN HE ACCEPTED THE INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 4,28,31,790/-. 4. THEREAFTER THE LD. PCIT-2, KOLKATA ISSUED SHOW C AUSE NOTICE DATED 13.01.2020 U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEREIN HE DISCLOSED HIS DESIRE TO INTERFERE AND REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 18.12.2 017 FOR AY 2015-16 (COPY OF SCN WHICH IS PLACED AT 30 & 31 OF PB). THE ONLY ISS UE THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PCIT IN THE SCN IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U NDER RULE 8 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE RULE) W HICH THE LD. PCIT HAS STATED IN HIS SCN AS UNDER: 5. PURSUANT TO SCN OF LD. PCIT VERY INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY A COPY OF WHICH IS SEEN PLACED AT 32 TO 37 OF PB IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE ONLY FOR THE LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D NOT THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR LIMITE D SCRUTINY. ASSESSEE THAT AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2014 DA TED 26.09.2014, THE FIELD OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED TO CONFINE THEIR ENQUIRIES S TRICTLY TO CASS REASONS AND THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. IT WAS THEREFORE CON TENDED WHEN THE CBDT HAS PROHIBITED THE AO FROM MAKING FOR THE ISSUES FOR WHICH LIMITED SCRUTINY HAS BEEN C OULD NOT HAD GONE INTO THE ISSUES OF DISALLOWANCE ACCORDING TO LD AR THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ENQUIRING IN TO THE ISS UE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT O F EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH OMISSION ON THE PART O F AO HAS BEEN RACKED UP IN THE REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION, WHICH LD PCIT CANNOT DO BECAUSE THE AOS OMISSION IS AS P ER THE CBDT CIRCULAR THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE , ACCORDING TO LD AR IMPUGNED ACTION OF LD. PCIT BY ITA NO. NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. OF LD. PCIT , THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS REPLY OBJECTING TO OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY LD. PCIT VIDE LETTER DATED 03.03.2020 PLACED AT 32 TO 37 OF PB IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSESSEES CASE FOR AY 2015-16 WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS FOR THE THREE (3) ITEMS DISCUSSED SUPRA ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME NOT THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR LIMITE D SCRUTINY. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY ASSESSEE THAT AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2014 DA TED 26.09.2014, THE FIELD OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED TO CONFINE THEIR ENQUIRIES S TRICTLY TO CASS REASONS AND THEY NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT TO THE ISSUES FOR WHICH SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. IT WAS THEREFORE CON TENDED BEFORE THE LD. PCIT THAT WHEN THE CBDT HAS PROHIBITED THE AO FROM MAKING ANY OTHER ENQUIRIES OTHER THAN FOR THE ISSUES FOR WHICH LIMITED SCRUTINY HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR BY CASS OULD NOT HAD GONE INTO THE ISSUES OF DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ENQUIRING IN TO THE ISS UE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT O F EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH F AO HAS BEEN RACKED UP IN THE REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION, WHICH LD PCIT CANNOT DO BECAUSE THE AOS OMISSION IS AS P ER THE CBDT CIRCULAR THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE , ACCORDING TO LD AR LD. PCIT BY EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT ITA NO. 370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 3 | P A GE REPLY OBJECTING TO THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2020 . PLACED AT 32 TO 37 OF PB IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY CTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE THREE (3) ITEMS DISCUSSED SUPRA AND IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME WAS IT WAS POINTED OUT BY ASSESSEE THAT AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2014 DA TED 26.09.2014, THE FIELD OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED TO CONFINE THEIR ENQUIRIES S TRICTLY TO CASS REASONS AND THEY IN RESPECT TO THE ISSUES FOR WHICH CASE WAS NOT BEFORE THE LD. PCIT THAT ANY OTHER ENQUIRIES OTHER THAN SELECTED FOR BY CASS , THE AO IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME . SO, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ENQUIRING IN TO THE ISS UE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT O F EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH F AO HAS BEEN RACKED UP IN THE REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION, WHICH LD PCIT CANNOT DO BECAUSE THE AOS OMISSION IS AS P ER THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE , ACCORDING TO LD AR , THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THIS ITA NO.370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 4 | P A GE ISSUE I.E. ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE INVOKING SECTION 14A REA D WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS AKIN TO LD. PCIT TRYING TO DO INDIRECTLY WHAT TH E AO COULD NOT HAVE DONE DIRECTLY. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT EVEN THOUGH THESE MATERIAL FACTS WERE BROUGHT THE NOTICE OF LD. PCIT, HE DID NOT DROP THE PROCEEDINGS . FURTHER, THE LD. A.R POINTED OUT THAT ON MERITS ALSO THERE WAS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD. PCIT, SINCE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D(1)(III) HAS BEEN SUO-MO TTO DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW I.E. 0.5% OF THE INVESTMENT WHIC H YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME [ RS. 14,18,798/- U/S 14A ]BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITAT KOLKATA IN REI AGRO LTD. IN 144 ITD 141 (KOL-TRIB) WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2014 IN ITA NO. 220 OF 2013. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO LD. A.R ON MERITS ALSO NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. THEREFORE, LOOKING FROM ANY ANGLE ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE AO BY ACCEPTING THE COMPUTATION & SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME IS A CORRECT ACTION OR PLAUSIBLE VIEW ON THE ISSUE, AND SO HE PLEADED THAT IMPUGNED ACTION OF LD PCIT MAY BE QUASHED. PER-CONTRA, THE LD CIT DR, FULLY SUPPOR TED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DOES NOT WANT US TO INTERFERE. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSAL OF RECOR DS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. PCIT COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED HIS REVISIONA L JURISDICTION ON THE ISSUE ON WHICH HE FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION/OMISSION ON TH E PART OF AO BECAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FAULTED FOR NOT CO NDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXEMP T INCOME, SINCE THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ONLY FOR LIMITED PUR POSE UNDER CASS AND THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT O F EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR LIMITED SCRUTI NY. THEREFORE, AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) THE AO COULD NOT HAVE INITIATED EN QUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND IT IS SETTLED THAT CBDT CIRCULARS AR E BINDING ON INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE LD. PCIT COULD NOT HAVE INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BECAUSE HE COULD NO T HAVE HELD THE AOS ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ENQUI RING IN TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT O F EXEMPT INCOME, SINCE THE AO ITA NO.370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 5 | P A GE HAS GONE AS PER THE DICTUM OF CBDT CIRCULAR ON THE SUBJECT. THEREFORE, THE AOS ACTION/ OMISSION OF NOT LOOKING INTO THE ISSUE OF 1 4A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR THE LD. PCIT TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION SINCE HE CANNOT HOLD THE AOS OMISSION TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE A ND THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF LD. PCIT IS AKIN TO DO INDIRECTLY WHAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE DONE DIRECTLY. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT LD. PCIT HAS VENTURED TO EXERCISE HIS RE VISIONAL JURISDICTION BY ISSUING SCN DATED 18.12.2017 WITHOUT EVEN SATISFYING THE CO NDITION PRECEDENT TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE SCN ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE IT IS QUASHED. CONSEQUENTLY ALL FURTHER ACTIONS/PROCEE DING INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PCIT IS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. F OR THIS WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SANJIB KUMAR KHEMKA IN ITA NO. 136 1/ KOL/2016 FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 02.06.2017 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT : NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FI ND THAT THE INSTANT CASE WAS SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THERE IS ALSO NO WHISPER IN THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY AFTER OBTAI NING THE PERMISSION FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO FAILED TO B RING ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE SCRUTINY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED ONLY TO THE INFORMATION EMANATING FROM THE AIR. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION EXCEEDED BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE BEING LEGAL IN NATURE AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED TO PROCEED WITH TH IS ISSUE FIRST BY HOLDING THAT, FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND AFTER EXAMINING OF THE REC ORDS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION WHILE HOLDING THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT HAS IN HIS OR DER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT EXCEEDED THE JURISDICTION BY HOLDING THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOU S IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT EM ANATING FROM THE AIR. THUS, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADJUDICATE ONLY THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE EMANATING FROM THE AIR AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 7. AND TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S CHENGMARI TEA CO. LTD. IN ITA NO. 812/KOL/2019 FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 3 1.01.2020 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 62 TO 70 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 8. NEXT COMES THE ASSESSEES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE AR GUMENT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED HIS REGULAR ASSESSMENT INVOLVING LIMITED SCRUTINY ON THE ABOVE STATED ISSUES NOT INCLUDING SEC. 33AB DEDUCTION TO THE PURPOSE OF THE IMPUGNED WITHDRAWALS. WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS DULY COVERED IN ITS FAVOR AS PER THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN ITA NO.1361/KOL/201 6 IN SANJEEV K. KHEMKA VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-15, KOLKATA DECIDED ON 02.06.2017 AS UNDER:- ITA NO.370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 6 | P A GE 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN THE CASE ON HAND REVOLVES WHETHER IT IS A CASE SELECTED UNDER CASS FOR LIMITE D SCRUTINY OR REGULAR SCRUTINY. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CONTEND THAT THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR SCRUTINY UNDER THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW. THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LI MITED TO THE EXTENT OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED THROUGH AIR. ACCORDINGLY THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXPANDED BEYOND THE ISSUE RAISED IN AIR. THUS THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BEYOND THE POINTS OF AIR IS I NVALID IN LAW AND SO THE SAME IS WITH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. I T IS THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT SUB JECT MATTER OF AIR CANNOT SUBJECT MATTER OF SCRUTINY. SUCH MATTERS INCLUDE SA LARY OF THE ASSESSEE, LOANS & INTEREST ON LOANS, PAYMENT OF LIC, COMMISSI ON & BROKERAGE INCOME ETC. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND THE POINTS OF THE AIR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CASE OF SCRUTINY WAS SELECTE D UNDER CASS MODULE. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN NO ADDITION/D ISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BEYOND THE POINTS MENTIONED IN AIR IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THEN SAME IS THE CASE WITH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 9. THIS TRIBUNALS YET ANOTHER DECISION IN ITA NO.1 011/KOL/2017 IN SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH VS. DCIT,(IT),CIRCLE1(1), KOLKATA DECIDED ON 27.04.2018 ALSO DECIDES THE INSTANT ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR ON IDENTICAL REA SONING. WE CONCLUDE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PCIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AS ERRONEOUS CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE GROUND WHICH NOWHERE FORMED SUBJECT-MATTER OF T HE CASS SCRUTINY AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE CASE RECORDS. WE REITERATE THE LEA RNED CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DETAINED REASONING HEREINABOVE THAT THE SEC. 263 RE VISION PROCEEDINGS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SET INTO MOTION FOR EXPANDING THE JURISDI CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF LIMITED SCRU TINY. WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE PCITS ACTION ASSUMING SEC. 263 REVISION JURISDICTI ON IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION AND CASE LAWS (SU PRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE SCN DATED 18.12.2017 ISSUED BY LD PCIT ITS ELF IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE IT IS QUASHED. CONSEQUENTLY ALL FURTHER ACTIONS/PRO CEEDING INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PCIT IS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (A. T . VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.01.2021 SB, SR. PS ITA NO.370/KOL/2020 NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD. A.Y. 2015-16 7 | P A GE COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- NAGA DHUNSERI GROUP LTD., 4A DHUNSERI HO USE, WOODBURN PARK, MINTO PARK, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700020 2. RESPONDENT PCIT-2, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A)- , KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAI L) 4. CIT- , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA