Tribunal held that there was no cogent material mentioned by the Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached the conclusion that the assessee\u2019s case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. The statement of the assessee\u2019s director recorded after the conversion of the case showed nothing adverse vis-a-vis the transactions. In the proposal of the Assessing Officer and the approval of the Principal Commissioner no reasonable view was formed as mandated in Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 5 of 2016 dated July 14, 2016 [2016 385 ITR\u00a0 (St.) 56 in an objective manner and merely suspicion and inference was the foundation of the view of the Assessing Officer. There was no direct nexus brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the proposal and, therefore, the proposal for converting the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny was merely aimed at making fishing enquiries. The Principal Commissioner had accorded the approval in a mechanical manner which was in clear violation of the Instruction No. 20 of 2015\u00a0 dt 29-12-2015 . Tribunal held that \u00a0the Department cannot be permitted to selectively apply the standards set by themselves for their own conduct. If this type of deviation is permitted, the consequences will be that floodgates of corruption will be opened which it is not desirable to encourage. When the Department has set down a standard for itself, the Department is bound by that standard and cannot act with discrimination.\u00a0 Followed \u00a0Amal Kumar Ghosh v. ACIT ( 2014) 361 ITR 458 (Cal) (HC) and Payal Kumari (Mrs.) v. ITO (ITA. No. 23\/Chd\/2011 dt. 24 -2\u00a0 -2011).<\/p>\n
\u00a0( AY.2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S.143(3): Assessment \u2014 Conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny -Principal Commissioner according approval in a mechanised manner \u2014 CBDT instructions- Violation of instruction No. 5 Of 2016 dt 14-7-2016 [2016 385 ITR (St.) 56 . [ S.142(1) , 144A, 292BB]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3oZ","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13081","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13081"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13081\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13082,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13081\/revisions\/13082"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}