The return filed by the assessee was subjected to limited scrutiny on three issues A) deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A;  B) issue of share capital and C) Refund claimed. The assessee furnished all related details. The assessee filed complete details in respect of deduction claimed u/s. 80JJAA, share capital issued. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act after taking into consideration details filed by the assessee. Subsequently, CIT sought to revise the assessment on the ground that the A.O. had not properly examined the four issues during the assessment i.e. a) Deduction of Rs. 99.23  lakhs claimed u/s. 80JJAA b) issue of non-cumulative preference shares c) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) and d) disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.

The assessee challenged the revisional order passed by the CIT before the Tribunal. The DR and Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that revision in respect of disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) and 14A of the Act could not be made as these issues could not be examined by the A.O. under the limited scrutiny without the permission of the higher authority.

In respect of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act and issue of share capital, the assessee demonstrated that the assessment was completed based on the submission of details called for and that the CIT, without pointing out any defect, infirmity or inadequacy, merely directed the A.O. to revise the assessment. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the A.O. had caused adequate enquiries and the CIT had not pointed out what additional enquiries were required to be made by the A.O. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the CIT by holding that simply holding that the Assessing Officer was required to make more enquiries is not a valid ground to hold assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.(AY. 2018-19)