2019 (1) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. "1. That the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,35,000 as against Rs. 1,15,000 and the order is bad on facts, as well as, on law. 2. That the order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law, as well as, on facts." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income electronically on July 25, 2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 59,33,320. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS originally for complete scrutiny and later converted in the I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case being converted to a limited scrutiny in the ITD/AST system, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to discuss and pass judgment on the issues not covered within the reasons of scrutiny. 4. The assessee preferred the first appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the learned Assessing Officer has rightly held that since the case of the assessee had been selected as per the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act on the ITD/AST system of limited scrutiny, he had no jurisdiction to discuss and pass an order on the issue not covered within the reasons for scrutiny. The only course of action with the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st of acquisition at Rs. 1,15,000, however, during the assessment proceeding, the assessee filed the claim that the long-term capital gain may be recomputed by substituting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,35,000 instead of Rs. 1,15,000 with the corresponding change in the date of acquisition, however, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the additional claim cannot be accepted in the already running assessment proceedings and for this purpose only course of action lied with the assessee to file a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC); [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC). Further the Assessing Officer also observed tha....