2024 (12) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lar also says that the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs is applicable to all pending appeals. Hence, the Ld. AR of the appellant pleaded that the Departmental appeal is not maintainable due to monetary limits. It was argued that Hon'ble Finance Ministry has announced in Parliament during Budget session of 2024 that they are enhancing the monetary limits to file the departmental appeals and accordingly a CBDT's circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.9.2024 was released which says that the same is effective from 17th September 2024 and it is applicable for all pending appeals before the ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court as on this date. The Ld. DR relied on grounds of appeal. 2. After hearing both sides and perusing the CBDT's Circular,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., and it was stated that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is incorrect and bad in law. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the same ground is taken stating that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable to the appellant. But, as mentioned above, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Ld. AO by adjudicating that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. AO. 7. During the hearing before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that it is a limited scrutiny (CASS) case and the issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is out of the purview of Ld. AO to make addition and relied on the decision of PCIT Vs. Rakesh Kumar 152 taxman.com 398 (P&H). In response to this argument, Ld. DR has said the issue of addition is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he purview of reasons mentioned in the CASS to make any addition. It was mentioned that as this is a legal ground affecting jurisdiction, the same can be taken at any time and hence taken now. This additional ground of appeal is entertained and adjudicated against the appellant because the Ld. DR has shown in paragraph 2 of the assessment order that one of the scrutiny reason is "whether investment and income in property is properly disclosed" and hence the appellant cannot dispute the issue on this technical ground. In our considered view also, the issue is covered under CASS, and hence the Ld. AO is empowered to adjudicate this issue in limited scrutiny and the reliance placed by Ld. AR of the appellant on CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015 dat....