2025 (12) TMI 1516 - AT - Income Tax

Limited scrutiny of share premium and share application money additions u/s 68 quashed due to jurisdiction and 143(2) notice defects

In limited scrutiny selected to examine share premium, the AO made an addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credits relating to share application money. ... Scope of limited scrutiny - addition u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of share application money received by the assessee during the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- We find that the limited scrutiny was selected for examination of share premium, however, we note that during the assessment proceedings the AO made the addition in respect of share application money received by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is in violation of the scope of limited scrutiny and accordingly the addition cannot be sustained. As relying on Shri Vijay Kumar [2019 (10) TMI 13 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] we are of the considered view that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction by going beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. In our opinion, the order passed by the AO is bad in law and cannot be sustained for the said reason. Accordingly we quash the assessment order as nullity and bad in law. Thus, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Whether Statutory notice issued for scrutiny as well as order passed by the AO was without jurisdiction and therefore, the entire assessment is liable to be quashed? - We note that in this case, the return of income has been declared by the assessee is only at Rs. 520/-. The notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO Ward-1, NALG, wherein the assessment was framed in this case by the ACIT, Circle-9(1), Kolkata. Therefore, the ACIT Circle-9(1), Kolkata framing the assessment dehors the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, the assessment framed by the ACIT, Circle-9(1), Kolkata is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing authority, raised for the first time at the appellate stage, was admissible as a purely legal ground requiring no further fact verification. (ii) Whether an addition made on an issue beyond the stated scope of 'limited scrutiny' was without jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order unsustainable in law. (iii) Whether the assessment was without jurisdiction where the statutory scrutiny notice under the relevant provision was issued by one income-tax authority, but the assessment was framed by a different authority without such notice being issued by the assessing authority who completed the assessment. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (i) Admissibility of additional legal ground raising jurisdiction Legal framework: The Court applied the principle that a purely legal issue can be raised for the first time before an appellate authority when all relevant facts are already on record and no further enquiry is required. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the challenge to jurisdiction to be a legal issue, with all necessary facts available in the appeal records, and therefore not requiring fresh investigation. Conclusion: The additional ground was admitted for adjudication. (ii) Addition beyond the scope of limited scrutiny Legal framework: The Court proceeded on the basis that in a case selected for limited scrutiny, the assessing authority must confine examination and additions to the specific issue(s) for which limited scrutiny was initiated, unless jurisdiction is properly expanded. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that limited scrutiny was selected for examination of share premium, but the assessing authority made an addition for unexplained cash credit relating to share application money. This was treated as beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny selection. The Court held this to be an excess of jurisdiction and a violation of the limited scrutiny constraint. Conclusion: The addition made beyond limited scrutiny could not be sustained; the assessment order was held bad in law and quashed as a nullity on this ground. (iii) Validity of assessment where notice and assessment were by different authorities Legal framework: The Court treated issuance of the statutory scrutiny notice by the competent authority as foundational to jurisdiction for framing a scrutiny assessment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the scrutiny notice was issued by one officer, whereas the assessment was framed by another officer. The Court held that framing the assessment 'dehors' issuance of the statutory notice by the assessing authority who completed the assessment rendered the assessment without jurisdiction and a nullity in law. Conclusion: The assessment was quashed as without jurisdiction. Consequentially, issues on merits were not adjudicated.