The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded...

The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by making an addition u/s 68 for unexplained unsecured loans by treating security deposits from sub/petty contractors as unsecured loans. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and the AO was required to obtain permission from the PCIT before investigating matters outside the selected parameters. The security deposits were against executed projects, evidenced by TDS deductions on payments to sub-contractors. The unsecured loans in the balance sheet pertained to different parties already examined by the AO. Therefore, the ITAT decided in favor of the assessee and held the addition unsustainable.

---