9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income from other sources which is evident from the computation made by the AO in respect of discussion made. Therefore, it is clear as rightly pointed by the ld. AR that the AO did not make addition on the reason selected for limited scrutiny i.e. substantial increase in capital in a year, but however, made addition under the head Income from other sources which is, admittedly, not the issue for selecting case under limited scrutiny. This position is not disputed by the CIT(A) nor by the ld. DR. I note that that the AO deviated from the limited scrutiny and made addition other than the reason selected for limited scrutiny which is in my opinion is complete scrutiny as pointed by the ld. AR violating of Instructions of CBDT. When there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO on account of income from other sources fails and it is set aside. Thus, ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to the Instruction No. 5/2016 dated 14-07-2016 and argued that the CBDT further clarified in partial modification to para 3(d) of the Instruction No. 20/2015 in a way that the AO shall be required to form a reasonable view that there is possibility of under assessment of income if the case is not examined under complete scrutiny. He vehemently argued that the AO in defiance of the said both Instructions issued by the CBDT proceeded to complete the limited scrutiny assessment converted into complete scrutiny assessment without following the directions issued by the CBDT and the CIT(A) simply confirmed the same without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. He placed reliance of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the reason selected for limited scrutiny i.e. substantial increase in capital in a year, but however, made addition under the head "Income from other sources" which is, admittedly, not the issue for selecting case under limited scrutiny. This position is not disputed by the CIT(A) nor by the ld. DR. I note that that the AO deviated from the limited scrutiny and made addition other than the reason selected for limited scrutiny which is in my opinion is complete scrutiny as pointed by the ld. AR violating of Instructions of CBDT. 6. I find that the Instruction issued by the CBDT at page 9 of the paper book and in para 3(d) of the said Instruction which discloses that if during the course of assessment proceedings in limited scrutiny cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplete scrutiny, in the absence of such reasonable view the assessment made by the AO is in my opinion is bad under law. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Suresh Jugraj Mutha (supra) held the assessment order made in the absence of approval of Administrative Commissioner of Income Tax vide para 11 of the said order is bad under law. On perusal of the said order, I note that the Coordinate Bench in order to come to such conclusion, placed reliance in the case of M/s. Nitin Killawala & Associates Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1611/M/2013 and in the case of M/s. S.H. Chougule Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 458/PN/2012 and ITA No. 605/PN/2012, dated 21-12-2016. The Co-ordinate Bench reproduced the finding rendered in the case of M/s. S.H. Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
