TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration of property reported in AIR. Therefore assessment order passed in violation of Board's instruction, which are binding upon the AO & hence assessment order passed is bad in law & void-ab-initio. 2. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for making addition of Rs. 43,41,770/- (out of Rs. 58,07,395/- claimed relating to construction of building) treating the construction bills as bogus bills. Alternatively & without prejudice to above, assessee disputes the quantum of addition. 3. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for making addition of Rs. 15,04,946/- (out of Rs. 16,51,571/- claimed relating to Labour Charges for construction). Alternatively & without prejudice to above, assessee disputes the quantum of addition. 4. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for making addition of Rs. 72,135/- (out of Rs. 2,64,135/- claimed relating to registration charges). Alternatively & without prejudice to above, assessee disputes the quantum of addition." 4. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee is an individual and filed her return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 12,40,400/- on 17.11.2014. The sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'Limited Scrutiny issues. Here, the specific issue was sale consideration but in the context of the taxability of capital gains in the hands of the appellant. So, any finding or examination of one side of the capital gains equation would perforce mean an examination of the other side of the equation. Sale consideration cannot be considered separate and distinct from cost of acquisition of property, the sale consideration of which is under the lens of revenue authorities. If the meaning attributed by the appellant to the concept of limited scrutiny is accepted, it would result in an anomalous situation where only a technical breach/issue would be examined without application of mind as in the instant case where sale consideration would be considered as separate from cost of the property, which was definitely not the intention of the concept of 'Limited scrutiny' as instituted by the CBDT. I, therefore, I hold that the AO in his order has not exceeded his jurisdiction in any w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the assessee. It is not in dispute that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny as is evident from the assessment order as well as the screenshot placed by the assessee at page 4 of the Paper Book. The screenshot of the IT portal suggest that the assessment was taken up for limited scrutiny and the reason for scrutiny selection is stated to be "sale consideration of the property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in an AIR". Perusal of the notices dated 19.01.2015 and 24.09.2015 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act which is placed at pages 3 & 56 of the Paper Book respectively suggest that the AO has not intimated the scope of scrutiny in both these notices. It is also observed from the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 18.07.2016 the AO required the assessee to furnish the following details/documents: "1. Detailed note giving the nature of business activities, and its modus operandi carried out during the year. Whether nature of business activities are identical to the earlier year or there is any change. 2. Details of all bank accounts maintained by you either personal or for business purpose alongwith narratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not render a specific finding but went into the merits of the matter and granted relief to the assessee to the extent indicated in the said order. The assessee as well as the revenue carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal examined the jurisdictional issue alone and noted that the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 143(2), dated 28th July, 2016, for a Limited Scrutiny covering four issues namely, interest expenses, income from real estate business, sale turnover mismatch and other expenses claimed in the profit and loss account. Subsequently, by notice dated 20 February, 2017, issues under Section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer called for information on secured and unsecured loan deposits and this was admittedly prior to the Limited Scrutiny being converted into a Complete Scrutiny by order dated 14 December, 2017. The learned Tribunal while holding that such action of the Assessing Officer was impermissible referred to the Circular issued by the Circular issued by the CBDT in Instruction no.5 of 2016, dated 14.7.2016. In the said Circular/Instruction, it was clarified by the CBDT that in cases under Limited Scrutiny the scrutiny....