Tribunal invalidates assessment due to lack of jurisdiction, upholds interest charges

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the unauthorized conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny and the unjustified addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of necessary approval, rendering the assessment invalid. However, the Tribunal upheld the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C as mandatory and consequential, dismissing the appellant's challenge on this ground.

---

---

Issues:
1. Conversion of limited scrutiny assessment into complete scrutiny without necessary approval.
2. Validity of addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
3. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act.

Issue 1: The appeal raised concerns regarding the conversion of a limited scrutiny assessment into complete scrutiny without necessary approval. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by making additions under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which was not the reason for selecting the case under limited scrutiny. The appellant cited Instructions issued by the CBDT, emphasizing the requirement for prior approval from the competent authority before converting limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. The Tribunal noted that the AO deviated from the limited scrutiny and made additions unrelated to the initial reason for scrutiny, violating CBDT Instructions. The Tribunal found that the AO lacked jurisdiction to carry out the assessment without prior approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Issue 2: The validity of the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was also contested. The Tribunal observed that the AO made additions under the head "Income from other sources," not in line with the reason for limited scrutiny. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of approval from the PCIT/CIT concerned for converting limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny, as required by CBDT Instructions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified, setting aside the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition.

Issue 3: The appellant challenged the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act in ground No. 3. The Tribunal noted that the charging of interest under these sections is mandatory and consequential. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed ground No. 3, upholding the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the issues raised regarding the conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny without necessary approval and the validity of the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. However, the Tribunal upheld the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act as mandatory and consequential.

---