Tribunal overturns arbitrary assessment under section 69A, emphasizing procedural fairness and evidence-based decisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the assessing officer's actions arbitrary and unjustified. The appellant successfully argued against the assessment under section 69A without proper justification, highlighting the importance of following correct procedures and justifying additions based on evidence and legal provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to consider facts in the right perspective by the CIT(A)
2. Alleged failure of the lower authority to follow Instruction No.5/2016
3. Assessment beyond the issues under Limited Scrutiny without higher authority approval
4. Assessment under section 69A without pointing out defects in books of account
5. Applicability of section 69A to tuition fees recorded in books of account
6. Reliance on 'Inspector Report' without confrontation
7. Request for permission to modify or add grounds of appeal
8. Arbitrariness and illegality in the assessment by the assessing officer

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for failing to consider facts correctly. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not follow Instruction No.5/2016 and made an illegal assessment beyond the Limited Scrutiny issues without higher authority approval. The assessing officer assessed income under section 69A without pointing out defects in the books of account, which was deemed arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2. The appellant contended that section 69A should not apply as the tuition fees were recorded in the books of account. The assessing officer relied on an 'Inspector Report' without confronting the appellant, raising doubts about its evidentiary value. The appellant sought permission to modify or add grounds of appeal as needed.

3. The brief facts revealed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny regarding cash deposits during demonetization. The assessing officer assumed the appellant was not engaged in professional activities based on an Inspector's report, leading to an addition under section 69A for the total gross receipts declared by the appellant.

4. The appellant's representative argued that the assessing officer's addition of the entire gross receipt was unjustified. The assessing officer failed to consider the appellant's declared income and made the addition without proper justification. The Tribunal found the assessing officer's actions highly unjustified and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the assessing officer's actions were arbitrary and unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of following proper procedures and justifying additions based on evidence and legal provisions.

---