2023 (6) TMI 725 - AT - Income Tax

Conversion of Limited Scrutiny into Complete Scrutiny - TP adjustment representing transaction of purchase of goods/spares - HELD THAT - The entire issue should have been limited to the extent of the dispute raised in the notice issued u/s 143(2) for the limited scrutiny but the AO in the present case has exceeded his jurisdiction as discussed - Thus we hold the addition made by the AO on account TP adjustment is without having valid jurisdiction therefore the same cannot be sustained. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee in this regard is hereby allowed. Addition u/s 68 - receipt of share application money from Shri Ramesh Vardhan - HELD THAT - The redemption of such mutual fund and utilization of same cannot be doubted. In effect the assessee is able justify the source of investment on account of salary commission income and opening bank balance from explained sources and amount of credit on account of redemptions of mutual funds which is sufficient enough to justify the source of share capital received by the assessee from the director. Assessee company has duly explained the sources of fund in the hand of Shri Ramesh Vardhan. The revenue authority also accepted the partial amount but not accepted source of the other amount only based on surmises and conjecture. Thus we hold that the assessee has discharged the onus cast u/s 68 of the Act with respect to receipt of share application money from Shri Ramesh Vardhan. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained Share Premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Unexplained Share Premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The assessee issued fresh shares at a premium to its existing shareholders, including M/s Guandong Yuzumi Precision Machinery Ltd Co of China and Shri Ramesh Vardhan. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the share premium as unexplained and made an addition of Rs. 1,23,39,500/-. The assessee argued that Shri Ramesh Vardhan had sufficient income and the investment was made through legitimate sources such as salary, redemption of mutual funds, and loans from friends and relatives. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) provided partial relief, considering some amounts as explained but disallowed credits related to mutual fund redemptions and loans from friends and relatives due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of the sources of funds. The Tribunal noted that Shri Ramesh Vardhan had a high income and that the investments in mutual funds were legitimate. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made under Section 68.

Issue 2: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

The AO referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,05,96,120/- for the purchase of goods/spares from the Associated Enterprise (AE). The assessee contended that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making this adjustment as the case was selected for limited scrutiny, which did not include transfer pricing issues. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the AO had not converted the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny with the necessary approval. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the AO/TPO exceeded their jurisdiction and the transfer pricing adjustment was unsustainable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 and holding that the transfer pricing adjustment was made without proper jurisdiction. The final assessment order was set aside, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.