Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in a case selected for limited scrutiny on the ground of transfer of immovable property, the Assessing Officer could sustain an addition on account of acquisition of immovable property without obtaining the requisite approval or correcting the scrutiny reason.
Analysis: The scope of limited scrutiny is confined to the issues for which the case is selected. The scrutiny reason in the present matter referred to transfer of property, whereas the addition was made on the basis of acquisition of property by the assessee. The distinction between transfer and acquisition is material: transfer presupposes existing rights in the asset capable of being conveyed, while acquisition by a purchaser does not answer that description. The use of the term transfer could not be stretched to cover acquisition so as to justify the addition within the limited scrutiny mandate. If the word used in the scrutiny reason was erroneous, the proper course was to rectify it or obtain approval from the competent authority before examining the unselected issue.
Conclusion: The Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny. The addition based on acquisition of immovable property could not be sustained and was liable to be deleted.