9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not make any addition on any of the two issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The AO, however, has not restricted himself to the above said specific issues for which made an addition of Rs. 2,51,75,501/- u/s 50C of the Act and also made another addition of Rs. 8,36,298/- by disallowing the total cost of acquisition of another land sold by the assessee. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed the first appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) wherein it was contended that provisions of Section 50C of the Act were not at all applicable as the assessee had not sold any asset being land or building or both but had sold a capital asset in the form of booking rights/right to allotment of flat only. The Ld. CIT (A) vide the impugned order deleted the addition of Rs. 8,36,298/- but sustained the addition of Rs. 2,51,75,501/-. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee had also disputed the jurisdiction of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 2,51,75,501 /- and it was contended that the AO had travelled beyond the scope of 'limited scrutiny' as he had acted without taking any approval from the Ld. Principal CIT /CIT as per the mandate of instr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and has erred in upholding the invocation of section 50C by the Assessing Officer. 3) That the learned CIT(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming the role of DVO himself and in making the impugned addition without making any reference to the DVO by the Assessing officer. 3.0 The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that this case was picked up for limited scrutiny only and no addition was made and no adverse inference was drawn by the AO in respect of either of the two issues on which the jurisdiction for limited scrutiny was vested in the AO. He further submitted that it was an undisputed fact that in the instant case, the AO had not obtained the requisite permission from the Ld. Principal CIT/CIT for expanding the scope of inquiry in a limited scrutiny case and, therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO, making additions beyond the scope of reasons for which the limited scrutiny was initiated, was null and void ab initio. He relied on CBDT Instruction No.5 of 2016 dated 14th July, 2016 and Instruction No. 20 of 2015 dated 29th December, 2015. It was further contended by him that the Ld. CIT (A) is factually wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and contended that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the entire payment for the flat had been made and that as per the payment plan of the builder, the construction of the property was complete. The Ld. AR argued that such findings were de hors any material on record. It was further submitted that on the contrary, the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in ignoring substantial documentary evidences in the form of RERA orders dated 6-10- 2017 wherein it was recorded that the construction was not complete and that the builder had quoted the expected date of completion of the project as December 2019. He further drew our attention to a press cutting from the newspaper 'Times of India' dated 14January 2019 to show that there was an inordinate delay in completing the construction of the project in which the rights to allotment had been purchased and sold by the assessee. He also submitted that the finding regarding complete payment was also wrong as the Ld. CIT (A) had failed to appreciate that substantial amounts were still to be paid to the builder in respect of the flat. It was contended by him that the capital asset sold by the assessee was neither lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of issues on which the Limited Scrutiny was initiated in this case. According to the Ld. DR, the AO was fully justified in making the impugned addition of Rs. 2,51,75,550/- as the verification of sale consideration formed part of the reasons for initiating the limited scrutiny. He referred to the notice u/s 142(1) dated 06/02/2017 issued to the assessee to contend that the assessee was asked to furnish details of immovable properties sold during Financial Year 2014-15 along with the documentary evidences and that it was in continuation of such inquiry that the addition was made and, thus, it cannot be said that it was outside the scope of limited scrutiny. He further supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A) to contend that the provisions of Section 50C were correctly invoked in this case .He further argued that there was no need to make a reference to the DVO as the assessee had not raised any dispute that the circle rates were higher than the market price. He prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the instant case was picked up for 'Limited Scrutiny' on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
