Assessment Officer exceeded jurisdiction by investigating unsecured loans beyond limited scrutiny scope before proper conversion

Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP Versus ITO, Ward-40 (2), Kolkata And ACIT, Circle-40, Kolkata Versus Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP

Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP Versus ITO, Ward-40 (2), Kolkata And ACIT, Circle-40, Kolkata Versus Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP - TMI The primary issues considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal relate to the legality and validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) actions in converting a limited scrutiny assessment into a complete scrutiny assessment, and the consequent jurisdictional and procedural consequences. The core legal questions addressed include:

1. Whether the AO exceeded jurisdiction by conducting enquiries beyond the scope of limited scrutiny prior to formally converting the case into complete scrutiny under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

2. Whether the conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny complied with the procedural safeguards and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), specifically Instruction No. 5/2016 and related circulars.

3. Whether the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is valid when the AO initiated enquiries on issues outside the limited scrutiny scope before the formal conversion date.

4. Ancillary issues relating to the treatment of certain unexplained cash credits under Section 68, and additions on account of gardening expenses, administrative expenses, and interest on TDS, income tax, and service tax were raised but rendered academic due to the primary legal issue's resolution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Legality of Conversion from Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny and Jurisdictional Validity of AO's Actions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act, 1961, under Section 143(2) and 143(3), governs scrutiny assessments. The CBDT has issued detailed procedural instructions to regulate the conduct of limited and complete scrutiny assessments, notably Instruction No. 5/2016 dated 14.07.2016 and Instruction No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015. These instructions mandate that:

• The AO must form a reasonable view, based on credible material (not mere suspicion or conjecture), that there is a possibility of under-assessment of income before converting a limited scrutiny case into a complete scrutiny case.
• The AO must obtain prior written approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) or Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) before conversion.
• The scope of enquiry in limited scrutiny cases is confined strictly to the issues specified in the notice under Section 143(2), and enquiries beyond these issues can only be conducted after formal conversion to complete scrutiny.
• The AO must promptly inform the assessee about the conversion and the expanded scope of scrutiny.

Judicial precedents, including decisions by coordinate benches of the ITAT and High Courts, have consistently held that failure to adhere to these procedural safeguards renders the assessment order invalid and a nullity. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Amal Kumar Ghosh emphasized that the department is bound by the standards it sets for itself, and deviation amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Coordinate benches of ITAT in cases such as Shri Vijay Kumar and Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. have held that assessments made beyond the scope of limited scrutiny before formal conversion are bad in law.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal meticulously examined the facts and procedural chronology. The assessee's return was selected for limited scrutiny covering four specific issues: interest expenses, income from real estate business, sales turnover mismatch, and other expenses claimed. However, the AO issued notices under Section 142(1) seeking information on secured and unsecured loans well before the formal conversion to complete scrutiny on 14.12.2017.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's enquiries into loans and deposits prior to formal conversion constituted an overreach of jurisdiction and violated the CBDT instructions. The AO's proposal for conversion, dated 05.10.2017, cited suspicion over a short-term capital loss transaction but lacked credible material or direct nexus to justify conversion. The approval by the Pr. CIT was mechanical and did not satisfy the requirement for objective formation of reasonable view.

Further, the Tribunal observed that the AO's conduct amounted to "fishing and roving enquiries," precisely what the CBDT instructions seek to prevent. The Tribunal relied on the CBDT's own circulars and letters, including the DGITVIF letter dated 30.11.2017, which condemns cryptic order sheet entries and ad hoc departmental conduct.

Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed that notices calling for information beyond limited scrutiny issues were issued on 20.02.2017, well before the conversion date. The AO's proposal for conversion lacked cogent material. The statement of the assessee's director recorded post-conversion did not reveal any adverse facts. The Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged the AO's excess jurisdiction but failed to quash the assessment, only deleting additions on merit.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the CBDT instructions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the AO's actions violated the procedural mandate. The conversion was invalid as it was not based on a reasonable view formed on credible material, and the AO conducted enquiries beyond the limited scrutiny scope prematurely. The assessment order, therefore, was a nullity.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's representative contended that the AO complied with procedural requirements and that the conversion was valid. However, the Tribunal found no credible material or direct nexus to justify conversion and noted the AO's premature enquiries. The Revenue's reliance on the order below was insufficient to counter the clear violation of CBDT instructions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by conducting enquiries beyond the limited scrutiny scope before formal conversion, in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016 and related circulars. The assessment order framed under Section 143(3) was therefore void and liable to be quashed.

Issue 2: Treatment of Unexplained Cash Credits and Other Additions

Though the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made under Section 68 regarding unexplained cash credits aggregating Rs. 80,00,000 and other additions related to gardening expenses, administrative expenses, and interest on TDS and taxes, the Tribunal did not adjudicate these issues on merit. Since the primary legal issue regarding the invalidity of the assessment order was decided in the assessee's favor, these grounds became academic and were not examined.

Significant Holdings

"I do see that the AO issued requisitions and notices as if he was in a proceeding of complete scrutiny even though it was a limited scrutiny case. Consequent to an information/report dated 10.10.2017 from I & CI Unit, Kanpur received in the AO's folder on 2nd November, 2017, the AO converted it formally into complete scrutiny only on 14th December, even though he had already issued (earlier on 26th July, 2017 and later) notices broadening the scrutiny beyond the scope of limited scrutiny."

"While proposing to take up 'Complete Scrutiny' in a case which was originally earmarked for 'Limited Scrutiny', the Assessing Officer ('AO') shall be required to form a reasonable view that there is possibility of under assessment of income if the case is not examined under 'Complete Scrutiny'... this reasonable view should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or unreliable source; and there must be a direct nexus between the available material and formation of such view." (CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016)

"The entire assessment proceedings do not have any feet to stand on. Therefore, we hold the assessment order to be nullity and we quash the same."

Core principles established include:

• The AO's jurisdiction in limited scrutiny cases is strictly confined to issues specified in the notice under Section 143(2).
• Conversion from limited to complete scrutiny must be based on a reasonable view formed on credible material, with prior approval and proper communication to the assessee.
• Premature enquiries beyond the scope of limited scrutiny prior to formal conversion violate CBDT instructions and render the assessment order void.
• Compliance with CBDT instructions is mandatory and failure to comply results in violation of principles of natural justice and the rule of law.

Final determinations:

• The AO exceeded jurisdiction by conducting enquiries outside the limited scrutiny scope before formal conversion.
• The conversion from limited to complete scrutiny was invalid due to lack of credible material and procedural non-compliance.
• The assessment order framed under Section 143(3) was held to be null and void and was quashed.
• Other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated as they became academic.
• The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.