Limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) remains valid despite expanded examination scope but profit additions deleted without concrete evidence

ITAT Raipur upheld the validity of limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), ruling that the AO did not exceed jurisdiction when examining contract receipts beyond the initial scope after discovering additional income sources through the assessee's submissions. However, the tribunal deleted additions for undisclosed profit from contract work and transport income, finding the AO's assumptions lacked concrete evidence and were based on conflicting presumptions regarding turnover calculations and deemed profit inclusions under sections 44AD and 44AE.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the validity of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, addition of undisclosed profit from contract work, addition of transportation income, and condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Validity of Assessment under Section 143(3):
The appeal challenged the assessment under section 143(3) without obtaining prior approval to convert limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. The assessing officer proceeded without complying with CBDT instructions. The tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that the assessing officer acted within the limited scrutiny mandate.

Addition of Undisclosed Profit from Contract Work and Transportation Income:
The assessee contested the additions made by the assessing officer, arguing that the profits declared were in line with provisions of sections 44AD and 44AE. The assessing officer presumed additional contract receipts without concrete evidence, leading to double taxation. The tribunal found the assessing officer's assumptions baseless and directed the deletion of the additions, as they lacked factual basis.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to postal system delays, beyond the assessee's control. The tribunal granted condonation of the two-day delay and allowed the appeal for hearing.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, dismissing the challenge to the assessment validity but directing the deletion of additions related to undisclosed profit from contract work and transportation income. The general and academic nature of one ground did not require separate adjudication.

---