TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T:- In the absence of any large investment made by the appellant during the impugned assessment year under adjudication, the scope of limited scrutiny meets dead-end, however the Ld. FAA without following the CBDT instruction No. 7/2014, 20/2015 and 5/2016 and also the CBDT letter dated 13 No. 2017, plagiarized the firm s investment into the hands of assessee and opined that the said addition should have been carried out u/s 69A as unexplained money instead of bringing to tax as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. All the more we find that, the very basis of initiation of scrutiny assessment is the large investment made by the firm wherefore the appellant is one of the signatory partners. However it shall be worthy to note that, for the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [for short CIT(A) ] dt. 10/07/2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ] which leapt out of assessment order dt. 22/03/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Malegaon [for short AO ] for the assessment year [for short AY ] 2013-14. 2. The original grounds assailed by the appellant through appeal memorandum are; 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the appeal of the appellant and in not holding that the addition made u/s 68 by the learned AO was illegal and has erred in holding, without giving any opportunity to the appellant, that the learned AO should have made addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the nature of re-constructed cash book filed before him and in wrongly interpreting the same as the receipt and payment account. 4. The assessee also filed following additional grounds which are; 1. In this case, the appellant wishes to raise additional grounds challenging the validity of addition u/s 68 of Rs.91,63,030/- made towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account by travelling beyond the scope of limited scrutiny proceedings under CASS selected for the reason of verification of source of investment in immovable property which was not at all, purchased by the assessee individual but by the partnership firm wherein the assessee was a partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [250 ITR 856 (Del)] wherein the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC [cited supra] was applied and it was held that where all the relevant facts are on record, a new legal ground raised by the assessee before the Tribunal must be admitted for adjudication. In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the appellant humbly prays that the additional grounds raised by the appellant, being purely legal in nature, may please be admitted for adjudication in the interest of justice. 5. Considering the original and the additional grounds, we have to voice that, neither of them are in consona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l placed on records till the date of conclusive hearing and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position, and are forewarned to either parties. 8. Seemingly, it is palpable that, the appellant s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS mechanism limiting the scope thereof to verification of large investment made by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that, during the impugned assessment year under adjudication, the appellant indeed made no investment into any immovable property, but the firm in which the appellant is a partner wherefore the appellant has contributed her share in making such investment out of the bank balance held by her wherein certain cash was deposited. However, on the basis of inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reby their lordship laid a proposition that; Where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside 11. Further, it shall not be out of the box to quote the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate Vs CIT reported at 214 ITR 210 whereby their lordship have held that, the instruction issued by the mother body i.e. CBDT undisputedly are binding on the department and any action in violation thereof renders it as untenable in law, consequently in the extant case, assessment been carried out in violation of instruction issued by CBDT deserve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
