TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly stated the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual. The return of income filed on 05.11.2009 declaring income of Rs. 2,11,760/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,09,000/- case selected for scrutiny through CASS. Necesssary notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act were served upon the assessee on 19.8.2010. AIR information was received which revealed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 25,10,000/- with State Bank of India, Sukhliya, Indore. Source of this cash deposit was asked from the assessee. In response it was submitted that advance in cash was received for the sale of agricultural land situated at Village Jakhya, Tahsil Sanwer, Dist. Indo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statistical purposes restoring it to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the legal ground raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. Subsequent there to the Ld.CIT(A) following the directions of the Tribunal adjudicated the issue of limited jurisdiction and the remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. Legal ground of the assessee raised was dismissed justifying the action of the A.O. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 1. That the Learned CIT(A)-II has grossly erred in confirming the area of scrutiny without obtaining the prior approval of higher authorities as required by circular dated 26/10/2006, 23rd May 2007 and 8th September 2010 issued by CBDT for scrut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... selected for scrutiny through CASS. Specific information about the cash deposit of Rs. 25,10,000/- with State Bank of India, Sukliya was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. This bank account is owned by the assessee. It is also not disputed about the cash deposited at Rs. 25,10,000/- belongs to the assessee. This was the "lead" with the Assessing Officer to scrutinize the assessee's case. In the course of this clarification and justification of the alleged cash deposit was examined and the Ld.A.O reviewed the transaction of capital gain and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 30,76,748/-. Further from the perusal of the assessment order we observe that no other issue has been taken up by the A.O except the issue emanating out o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the fact as to whether the AO had exceeded its jurisdiction in limited scrutiny in light of the various CBDT circulars. However, I find that the AIR information was with respect to the cash deposit made by the appellant. Thus, the AO has verified the cash deposit which is a direct result of the capital gains so arisen to the appellant. Thus, the AO was well within its right and jurisdiction to verify the correctness of claim with respect to the capital gain. The AO was asked to specifically comment on the same and I would like to reproduce the copy of the remand report sent by him in this regard:- "2. All the additions were made after verification the reasons as mentioned in CASS like - (a) Addition on account of cap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral income and deduction u/s 80C and interest income without the prior approval of administrative commissioner. 3. That the circulars of the CBDT are very clear and authorize the assessing officer to make the additions on specific items only. 4. That the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in limited scrutiny is limited to examine the source of deposit only. If the find same escapement of income then he is bound to seek prior approval of administrative commissioner before examining the other issues. 5. That the assessing officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction to make the addition on account of capital gain, agricultural income, interest income and deduction u/s 80C. 6. That the appellant relies upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 for indexation of long term capital gain. The index cost for deduction is Rs. 28,63,440/-) 2.2 After going through the remand report it is abundantly clear that the AO has not exceeded its jurisdiction in limited scrutiny by verifying and consequently making an addition on account of capital gain. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant and his reply to the remand report so given. The appellant has pleaded that the jurisdiction of the AO is limited to examining the source of cash deposit. However, it's only in the process of examining the source of cash deposit that the AO verified the claim of the appellant and thereby ended up making the addition on account of capital g....