2022 (5) TMI 1008 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, highlights importance of scrutiny scope adherence

ACIT, Circle- 56 (1), New Delhi Versus Shri Sandeep Taneja And (Vice-Versa)

ACIT, Circle- 56 (1), New Delhi Versus Shri Sandeep Taneja And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues:1. Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.2. Allowance of claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer beyond the scope of limited scrutinyThe case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order dated 17.01.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer had selected the case for 'Limited Scrutiny' due to reasons such as a high increase in Annual Letting Value of House Property and large deductions claimed under various sections. However, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 24.12.2017 determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,82,31,550, which included disallowances related to long-term capital gains and cost of construction. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the assessee was eligible for the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Revenue raised grounds questioning the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also filed Cross Objections challenging the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3).Issue 2: Allowance of claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961The Revenue raised grounds of appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). The Revenue argued that the claim made under Section 54F of the IT Act was not proper and inadmissible. The assessee, in the Cross Objections, contended that the assessment order passed by the Ld. ACIT, Circle 56(1), New Delhi, was liable to be quashed due to jurisdictional issues and exceeding the scope of limited scrutiny. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not discussed the original reasons for selecting the case under limited scrutiny but proceeded to examine the disallowance related to exemption claimed under Section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer can widen the scope of scrutiny with prior approval, and in this case, there was an irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The Ld. CIT(A) was found to have erred in dismissing the grounds against the assessee. On merits, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the claim under Section 54F, emphasizing that the amount invested in the capital gain scheme cannot be taxed in the year of investment without considering the utilization within the allowed period.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and allowed the Cross Objections filed by the assessee. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the scope of scrutiny, obtaining prior approval for widening the scope, and considering the utilization of amounts invested in capital gain schemes for tax purposes.