DAYANAND SIDRAMAPPA VIJAPURE,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) in not adjudicating the legal ground raised before him.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the following grounds were raised before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) which has been reproduced in para 2 of the appellate order which are as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer gravely erred in passing order under section 143 3 thereby making additions of Rs.4649151 to the income of the assesse on the issues which were not mentioned in the notice issued for limited scrutiny and thereby exceeding the scope specified as per the circular issued by CBDT for limited scrutiny. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer gravely erred in making additions of Rs 4649151 without converting the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer gravely erred in making additions of Rs 925000 to the income of the assessee by considering the stamp valuation of the property purchased by the assesse without receiving the report of the DVO. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer gravely erred in making additions of Rs 1460000 disregarding the explanations offered and documents submitted by the assessee in support of his contentions. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer gravely erred in making additions of Rs 2264151 for the gifts received from the relatives of the assesse under section 68 of the It Act 1961 disregarding the explanations offered by the assessee and the documents submitted in support of the contentions of the assessee. 6. The Appellant would like to leave, add, alter, amend, modify, delete above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.”

The Ld. AR submitted that as per ground of appeal No. 2 the assessee has challenged the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.46,49,151/- without converting the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny. Referring to para 2 of the assessment order, he drew attention of the Bench to the same and submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny purpose for large cash deposit in saving bank account. However, apart from addition u/s 68, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.9,25,000/- u/s

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions made by both the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has raised a legal ground before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging the order of the Assessing Officer where in he has made addition other than the issues as per limited scrutiny without converting the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny. Therefore the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) should have adjudicated that ground. However, a perusal of the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) shows that he has not adjudicated the legal ground raised before him. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the legal ground raised before him. Needless to say, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.