Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (5) TMI 1331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have been added u/s 68 of the Act. First of all, there is no cash deposits post-demonetisation period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, albeit present appeal pertains to FY 2014-15 and in this year only cash deposited in the bank account on various dates, which is clear from the bank statement and which has been stated to be received from job receipts and making of jewellery. Thus, the entire premise on which case was selected for scrutiny was non-existent and accordingly, AO could not have travelled beyond that for enlarging the scope of assessment by making addition on a different ground. The CBDT vide its Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 and Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016 has categorically held that AO cannot travel be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Rs. 7,40,505.00 as being beyond the jurisdiction of selection of case under limited scrutiny. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted 3. That the Honorable CIT(A)-IX has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment being made by non jurisdictional officer. Hence, the assessment order may be vacated. 4. That the Honorable CIT(A)-IX has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment order as no order under section 127 passed before transferring the file from ITO ward 51(3) to 26(3). Hence, the assessment order may be vacated. 5. That the Honorable CIT(A)-IX has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment order providing for rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant on untenable and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /- is bogus as the assessee could not establish the fact , whether it had carried out any business or not. AO also referred to ITI report who was sent to enquire the address mentioned wherein ITI reported that no company existed in such building. Instead of limiting the scope for which the case was selected for scrutiny, AO travelled beyond and held that entire receipts shown in the books of the assessee is to be added u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Even, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding that the assessee was unable to prove that it carried out any business of jewellery or job receipts and, therefore, AO is justified in taxing the entire receipts from income from other sources liable to be added u/s 68 of the Act. 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ious documentary evidences before us in the form of VAT return, cash memo, bills vouchers, VAT registration, etc. He also rebutted the ITI report and submitted that during the course of remand proceedings at the first appellate stage, assessee has categorically stated that the entire building on which the address of the assessee situated belongs to his father. He has also requested that ITI can be sent once again to verify this fact and any enquiry behind the back cannot be sustained. Thus, he submitted that not only the additions are beyond the scope of limited scrutiny but also the additions made by the AO are not based on correct appreciation of facts placed before the authorities below. 6. On the other hand, ld. Senior DR strongly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n a different ground. 8. The CBDT vide its Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 and Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016 has categorically held that AO cannot travel beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and in case the AO wants to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny then he has to seek approval from concerned Pr.CIT or CIT which has to be given in writing after getting satisfaction from the merits on the issues. In this case, no approval has been taken by the AO from concerned Pr.CIT/CIT before making any addition beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Accordingly, I hold that the entire addition which has been made cannot be sustained and the same is beyond the scope and violation of limited scrutiny. Accordingly, on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates