The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi , Vapi V. Green Park, Vapi

MA 56/SRT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4413 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िविवध आवेदन सं./M.A.No.56/SRT/2023 (Arising out of ITA 180/SRT/2022) (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in physical Court) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vapi Circle, Room No.704, 7 th Floor, Fortune Square-II, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 Vs M/s Green Park 95/P b/h C Type Masjid Nr. Advance Co-Op HSG Society, Vapi-396195 PAN: AALFG 7891 C अपीलाथŎ/Applicant ŮȑथŎ /Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P.M.Jagasheth, C.A राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 29.12.2023 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement 03.01.2024 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This Miscellaneous Application (MA) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is filed by the Revenue for seeking rectification of alleged mistake apparent in the order dated 15.12.2022 passed in case of Green Park vs. PCIT, Valsad ITA No.180/SRT/2022 for assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue has inter alia contended in their MA that assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring income at Rs.16.95 lakhs. The case was related to survey and was to be examined under compulsory scrutiny. The assessment was completed by Assessing Officer on 18.12.2019 in accepting returned income by treating as “limited scrutiny cases”. The assessee during survey conducted on 22.09.2016 made a declaration of Rs.1.24 crores. MA No.56/SRT/2023 (a/o ITA 180/SRT/2022) M/s Green Park 2 However, such income was adjusted against the current and earlier year brought forward losses. Further the income declared during the survey was to be taxed @ 60% as per provision under section115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, on the proposal of Assessing Officer, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Ld. PCIT for short) revised the assessment order under section 263 of the Act with a direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de novo. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2022 allowed the appeal of assessee on the ground that it was a “limited scrutiny” and the issue raised / identified in proceeding under section 263 regarding undisclosed declared during the survey was not the subject-matter of “limited scrutiny”. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee made its submission exactly on similar line and would submit that being a case of survey, the returned income was to be examined thoroughly. Thus, there is mistake in the order passed by this Tribunal which require rectification for recalling the order or to modify it accordingly. 2. On the other hand, Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that the assessment order, on the face of it clearly mentioned that case was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verification of cash deposit during the year. The Assessing Officer thoroughly examined such issue and he was not entitled to examine any other issue, if there was any mistake in selection of enquiry, the Assessing Officer was fully empowered to take necessary permission for making full-fledged scrutiny of assessment form his higher authorities. Being MA No.56/SRT/2023 (a/o ITA 180/SRT/2022) M/s Green Park 3 a case of “limited scrutiny”, the Assessing Officer examined the limited issue and accepted the returned income of assessee. The Ld. PCIT revised the assessment order on the issue, which was not the subject-matter of “limited scrutiny” proceedings. Thus, there is no mistake apparent in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.12.2022. The Ld.AR of the assessee prayed for dismissal of MA under section 254(2) of the Act. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the records carefully. We find that while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee, this Bench on considering the rival submission of both the parties held that the case was selected for “limited scrutiny” which was examined thoroughly by assessing officer and there was no other issue in the selection of enquiry. Thus, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT by invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was beyond the reason of selection for “limited scrutiny”. Thus, in our considered view and there is no mistake which can be classified as “mistake apparent” for recalling order dated 15.12.2022. It is ordered accordingly. 4. In the result, MA filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 03/01/2024 in the open court. S S Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 03/01/2024 / DKP, Outsourcing Sr.PS* MA No.56/SRT/2023 (a/o ITA 180/SRT/2022) M/s Green Park 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File // True Copy // By order Sr.Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Surat copy/