TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2018 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Ram Gilda,Advocate (AR) For the Respondent : Shri K.G.Goyal, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [in short referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 28.10.2016 and is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 21.12.2011 framed by the Income Tax Officer-4(3), Indore pertaining 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- after making various additions and demand notice was issued to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer by alleging that the Ld. A.O extended the area of scrutiny without obtaining the permission of the higher authorities as required by Circular dated 26.10.06, 23.5.2007 and 8.9.2010 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. However the assessee failed to succeed in the appeal and went before the Tribunal on this legal issue. The Tribunal vide its order dated 22.6.2016 allowed the assessee s appeal for statistical purposes restoring it to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the legal ground raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. Subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hearing of appeal 5. Ground No.1 and 2 challenges the finding of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the area of scrutiny taken up by Ld.A.O without obtaining the prior approval of the higher authority. Ground No.3 to 7 are on merits challenging various additions made by the Ld. A.O in the assessment order. Ground No.8 is general in nature which needs no adjudication. 6. We first take up Ground No. 1 2 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. A.O exceeding its jurisdiction. We heard both the parties and gone through the records carefully. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Specific information about the cash deposit of ₹ 25,10,000/- with State Bank of India, Sukliya was brought to the notice of the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the additions made without obtaining the prior approval of the higher authorities are liable to deleted. 2. In this case the appeal order was passed on 31.03.2004 by the CIT(A)-II, Indore dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Subsequently, the matter was restored back to the file of CIT(A)-II with the direction to decide the additional grounds afresh dealing with the circulars of CBDT as quoted by the appellant. Thus, the matter restored back by the Hon ble ITAT with the limited jurisdiction to decide 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer is fair enough to accept the following facts: (a) That the case was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny. (b) That the limited scrutiny was for examination of source of cash deposit in the saving account and not other aspect of the matter. (c) No approval was obtained by the assessing officer to widen the scrutiny from the administrative commissioner. 2. That the assessing officer is not permitted to make the additions on account of capital gain, agricultural 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not sub-registrar value. 11. Appellant relies upon the following decisions:- (a) Pyare Mohan Mathur (HUF) Vs. ITO (copy enclosed on page no.6 to 11) (b) Smt. Krishna Bajaj Vs. ACIT reported in 267 CTR 0172 (Karnataka High Court) Under the circumstances and in view the legal position and case laws, we request to consider the fair market value of ₹ 4,92,000/- (1/3rd share of ₹ 14,76,000 of the appellant) as per cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 for indexation of long term capital gain. The index cost for deduction is ₹ 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 makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
