Facts of the Case
The
assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 11.01.2016
declaring total income of ₹5,86,810. The case was selected for scrutiny under
CASS for limited scrutiny specifically for verification of cash deposits, as
communicated in notice under Section 143(2) dated 29.07.2016. During the course
of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 142(1)
calling for information and explanations on issues beyond the scope of limited
scrutiny, including purchase and sale of properties, capital gains, and sources
of investment, even prior to formal conversion of the case into complete
scrutiny. The assessment was ultimately completed making multiple additions
under Sections 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 68 and 69A of the Income-tax Act. The
additions were confirmed by the CIT(A), leading to the appeal before the
Tribunal.
Issues Involved
Whether
the Assessing Officer was justified in making enquiries and additions on issues
beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following the procedure prescribed
for conversion to complete scrutiny, whether such action was in violation of
CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016, and whether the additions made under Sections 56,
68 and 69A were sustainable in law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The
assessee contended that the case was selected strictly for limited scrutiny on
the issue of cash deposits and that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction
to enquire into or make additions on other issues without valid conversion to
complete scrutiny. It was argued that notices under Section 142(1) calling for
details beyond the limited scrutiny issues were issued even before any formal
conversion and without fulfilling the conditions laid down under CBDT
Instruction No. 5/2016. Reliance was placed on coordinate bench decisions
holding that such fishing and roving enquiries are impermissible and render the
assessment invalid.
Respondent’s Arguments
The
Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer had subsequently converted the
limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny and therefore the enquiries and
additions were valid. It was submitted that the additions were rightly made
based on material gathered during assessment proceedings and confirmed by the
CIT(A).
Court Order / Findings
The
ITAT Kolkata held that the Assessing Officer had clearly exceeded jurisdiction
by initiating enquiries and making additions on issues beyond the scope of
limited scrutiny even prior to valid conversion of the case into complete
scrutiny. The Tribunal observed that CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016 mandates
strict compliance with prescribed procedure, including formation of a
reasonable view based on credible material and obtaining proper administrative
approval before conversion. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the
conversion was mechanical, unsupported by credible material, and aimed at conducting
fishing enquiries. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were held to be in
complete violation of CBDT instructions and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal
further held that the addition of ₹28,00,000 under Section 68 on account of
cash deposits was also unsustainable, as the assessee had duly explained the
source with supporting bank statements and replies, which were ignored by the
lower authorities.
Important Clarification
The
Tribunal clarified that in cases selected for limited scrutiny, the Assessing
Officer is strictly bound to confine enquiries to the specific issues
identified and cannot travel beyond the scope without valid conversion to
complete scrutiny as per CBDT instructions. Any assessment framed in violation
of such binding instructions is void and unsustainable. Even Section 292BB
cannot cure jurisdictional defects arising from non-compliance with CBDT
mandates.
Final Outcome
The
appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in full. The assessment order for
Assessment Year 2015-16 was quashed, and all additions made under Sections
56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 68 and 69A of the Income-tax Act were deleted as being
without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
Source Link- https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1768209190-TPaeeY-1-TO.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is
shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers
should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not
intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and
the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.
The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment