CIT(A) cannot change legal provision under which assessment was made, lacks authority under section 251(1)(a)

The ITAT Delhi held that CIT(A) lacks authority to change the legal provision under which an assessment was made. While section 251(1)(a) empowers CIT(A) to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul assessments in appeals, it does not permit altering the specific statutory provision applied to an item. The CIT(A) improperly treated an addition made under section 69A concerning cash received from society members. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s confirmation, ruling that without express statutory power, the appellate authority cannot modify the legal basis of the original assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification for the addition of Rs. 32,00,000 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Specific additions of Rs. 5,00,000, Rs. 22,00,000, and Rs. 5,00,000 concerning contributions by individual members.
4. The power of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to change the provision of law under which an assessment is made.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings under Section 147:

The appellant contested the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not comply with mandatory statutory requirements of Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant claimed that jurisdiction was not assumed as per law. However, since relief was granted on merits, the tribunal did not adjudicate this ground, leaving it open.

2. Justification for Addition under Section 69A:

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed an addition of Rs. 32,00,000 under Section 69A, out of the total Rs. 66,38,450 added by the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the addition was unjustified as the amounts were contributions from society members for construction of flats, duly reflected in the ledger accounts. The tribunal set aside the confirmation of Rs. 32,00,000 by CIT(A), considering the material facts and legal principles.

3. Specific Additions Concerning Contributions by Members:

- Shri Ram Lal Gupta (Rs. 5,00,000): The appellant argued that Sh. Ram Lal Gupta was a member who contributed Rs. 5,00,000 in cash towards his flat. Despite a typographical error in the member list, evidence showed that he was indeed a member, and his contributions were refunded. The tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was unjustified and deserved deletion.

- Shri Ashish Doon (Rs. 22,00,000): Sh. Ashish Doon contributed Rs. 36,64,000 in cash, confirmed by an affidavit. The CIT(A) accepted only Rs. 14,64,000, citing discrepancies in earlier submissions. The tribunal noted that affidavits must be fully considered unless cross-examined, and found that the rejection of Rs. 22,00,000 was not tenable. Thus, the addition was deleted.

- Shri Karan Singh (Rs. 5,00,000): Sh. Karan Singh contributed Rs. 11,00,000, including Rs. 5,00,000 for his flat. The CIT(A) did not accept the source of Rs. 5,00,000. The tribunal emphasized the need to consider affidavits in full and found that the contribution was refunded, making the addition unjustified. The Rs. 5,00,000 addition was deleted.

4. Power of CIT(A) to Change the Provision of Law:

The appellant argued that CIT(A) lacked the power to change the provision of law under which an assessment was made, specifically from Section 69C to Section 69A. The tribunal agreed, citing the principle that CIT(A) cannot alter the legal provision applied by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal referenced judgments supporting this view, leading to the deletion of the Rs. 32,00,000 addition under Section 69A.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the tribunal setting aside the confirmation of Rs. 32,00,000 by CIT(A) and deleting specific additions related to member contributions. The tribunal did not address the validity of the re-assessment under Section 147 due to relief granted on merits.

---