2019 (10) TMI 13 - AT - Income Tax

Limited scrutiny - AO exceeding the jurisdiction- Addition on cash deposited in bank - AO while making the impugned additions has exceeded his jurisdiction - case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny issue i.e. regarding security transaction and AO could not find any reason to make any addition in respect of issue for which the limited scrutiny was done - HELD THAT - DR has been fair enough to admit that the impugned additions have been made by the Assessing Officer on certain other issues, whereas, the case of the assessee was selected for the purpose of limited scrutiny relating to security transactions As find that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, thus, being exceeding his jurisdiction are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional exceedance by Assessing Officer in making additions beyond limited scrutiny scope.
2. Validity of additions made by Assessing Officer.
3. Computation of tax under section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961.
4. Charging of interest under section 234B by Commissioner of Income Tax.

Jurisdictional Exceedance by Assessing Officer:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction by making additions beyond the limited scrutiny scope, which was specifically related to security transactions. The Assessing Officer made additional additions without any valid reason within the limited scrutiny issue. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make such unrelated additions. The Departmental Representative acknowledged the additions were made on other issues not within the limited scrutiny scope. The Tribunal found the additions made by the Assessing Officer beyond the limited scrutiny scope as unsustainable in law and ordered their deletion, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.

Validity of Additions Made by Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer had made additions on various grounds, including cash deposits in the bank not part of limited scrutiny, computation of tax under section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961, and charging interest under section 234B. The Counsel for the assessee argued against these additions, stating they were not justified and erred in law. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's additions, particularly those exceeding the limited scrutiny scope, were not sustainable and ordered their deletion. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Computation of Tax under Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961:
One of the grounds raised in the appeal was regarding the computation of tax under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Tribunal's decision did not specifically address this issue in detail in the judgment provided. However, it can be inferred that since the overall appeal of the assessee was allowed, it is likely that any discrepancies or errors in the computation of tax under section 115BBE were rectified or found in favor of the assessee.

Charging of Interest under Section 234B by Commissioner of Income Tax:
Another ground of appeal raised was the charging of interest under section 234B by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal's judgment did not delve deeply into this issue but mentioned that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, including the interest charged under section 234B, were unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. This indicates that the Tribunal found the charging of interest under section 234B to be unjustified or erroneous, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh, in the case at hand, primarily focused on the jurisdictional exceedance by the Assessing Officer in making additions beyond the limited scrutiny scope. The Tribunal found such additions unsustainable in law and ordered their deletion, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment did not provide detailed analysis on the computation of tax under section 115BBE or the charging of interest under section 234B, but it can be inferred that any issues related to these grounds were resolved in favor of the assessee based on the overall decision of allowing the appeal.

← Previous Next →