2021 (7) TMI 140 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition on the issue of capital gain arising from the sale of shares as raised in the reasons recorded and Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT - In the present case, the assessment was reopened, as is evident from the reasons recorded by the AO, on the issue of capital gain arisen to the assessee from sale of shares which according to the AO had escaped assessment and since no addition on account of such capital gain was made by the AO in the assessment completed u/s.143(3)/147 we find merit in the contention for the assessee that the AO had no jurisdiction to make the additions on two other issues and the additions so made are not sustainable as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT Even the ld. DR has not been able to dispute this legal position emanating from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) as well as the other judicial pronouncements relied upon therein as discussed above. He has also not been able to bring to my notice any judicial pronouncement which is in favour of the revenue on this issue. Accordingly delete both the additions made by the AO in the assessment completed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act and allow this appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment made by AO.
2. Additions made on advances received and disallowance under section 14A.
3. Jurisdiction of AO to make additions on issues other than those for which proceedings were initiated.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata dated 24.06.2019. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in trading of shares, real estate business, and registration services, filed its return declaring a total income of ?94,620. The AO reopened the assessment due to alleged non-declaration of capital gains from share sale. Although no addition was made on capital gains, the AO added advances received and disallowed expenses under section 14A. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that since no addition was made on the issue of capital gains, the other two additions were not justified. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, citing Explanation 3 to Section 147, inserted in 2009, as applicable to the case. The CIT(A) upheld both additions, prompting the appeal to the Tribunal.

3. In support of the appeal, the counsel for the assessee argued that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions unrelated to the initiated proceedings, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. The High Court ruled that the AO cannot reassess issues beyond the scope of the initial proceedings if the reasons for initiation cease to exist. The Tribunal concurred with this view, emphasizing that the AO's jurisdiction is limited to issues for which proceedings were initiated. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, holding that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by making additions unrelated to the initial reasons for assessment. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal principles established by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other judicial precedents, leading to the deletion of the contested additions.