Assessing Officer Can select Any Return for Inspection after obtaining CCIT Consent- M/s Brothers Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Case

CBDT Guidelines for the analysis of Cases: Law establishes as to how the CBDT `1. As per the Guidelines for Income tax Investigation, the AO is authorized to select any return for inspection after recording the reasons and getting the consent from the CCIT/CIT. The matter under the section should be picked if, they are enforcing the reasons and the case is chosen through CASS. These types of issues should be viewed by CCIT / CIT in regards to the quality of charge. It is believed that in this case, the obligations of the guidelines have been followed by the Assessing Officer. The phrase “compelling reasons” is a corresponding term and has to be seen from Assessing Officer’s perception.  Find out the details of M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Case.

M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Case

Talking about approval given by Ld. CIT, it is evident that the recommendation of the AO to pick the case of Suparna Bose at Sl. no. (25), the Ld. CIT has not approved. There is no need to record the reason for obtaining approval. In any such case, the subjective guidelines are enough for the active functioning of the department.

The need to get approval from CIT/CCIT, as expected, in this departmental correspondence cannot be compared with the requirements stipulated under the enactment of Section 151(1). Both Sections 151(1) and Section 151(2) of the law, need the Income Tax Commissioner to register contentment instead of the mere approval from the Board.

The details of the M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Case

The faith shown by the assessee on the judgment of the Kolkata “B” Bench in the lawsuit of Ajanta Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO dated 21st May 2012 is not applicable in this situation because, in that matter, the criteria put forward for the selection of case for the investigation was invalid.

In this case, it is not mentioned anywhere that the Ld. CIT (A) needed to provide precise reasons while approving. Likewise, the decision in the lawsuit of Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. vs. DCIT (1998) 67 ITD 573 (Mad) also does not refer to the grant of approval of ADIT by CIT, prior to giving the assessment order in regards to u/s 158BD of the Act. Once the CIT is convinced with the reasons offered by the AO, they will not provide the different reasons one more time or repeat those reasons again, for that matter, to grant the approval for the same.

In addition to it, in the lawsuit ITO vs. M/s Direct Sales (P) Ltd. dated 25th Feb 2015, the problem acknowledged was assumed to be designated u/s 151 of the Act and not based on the grant of any approval. Thus, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Del) case, thought of contemplating the powers vested with the Commissioner of the section under 151 of the Act. Hence, it was considered that these lawsuits cannot be referred to the matter in hand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *