JAYDIP DHAR,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1),, JALPAIGURI

PDF

ITA 642/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: us that this appeal is time barred by 421 days, for which an application has been filed by the assessee for condoning of the said delay. After taking into account the reasons cited by the Ld. AR and considering the affidavit on records we find that the delay is attributable to the illness of the assessee for which the medical certificate along with other documents were placed before us due to which the assessee could not attend to his work. Consequently, the delay is hereby condoned and the4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's return was selected for limited scrutiny due to cash deposits. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained investment in property, unexplained money, and difference in purchase/stamp value. The assessee challenged the addition of unexplained investment in property, arguing it was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny.

Held

The Tribunal ruled that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions beyond the specified scope of limited scrutiny without first converting the assessment into a complete scrutiny. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 17,81,000/- for unexplained investment.

Key Issues

Can an Assessing Officer make additions outside the scope of a limited scrutiny without first converting the assessment into a complete scrutiny?

Sections Cited

250, 69C, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 69B, 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sunil Surana, AR Department represented by : Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 23.11.2023passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

At the outset we observe on the basis of records before us that this appeal is time barred by 421 days, for which an application has been filed by the assessee for condoning of the said delay. After taking into account the reasons cited by the ld AR and considering the affidavit on records we find that the delay is attributable to the illness of the assessee for which the medical certificate along with other documents were placed before us

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ground No. 3 is not pressed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

The issue raised in Ground No. 1 and 2 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 17,81,000/- as made by the AO as unexplained investment in respect of property u/s 69C of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said issue was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny.

The assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,03,720/- which was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of cash deposit into the bank account. The AO issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire which were duly replied by the assessee. Finally, the assessment was completed vide order dated 27.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making three additions one unexplained investment of Rs. 17,81,000/-, two unexplained money u/s 69B, Rs. 10 lacs on account of cash deposit into bank and third the difference amount in purchase price and stamp value of Rs. 9,65,850/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). The assessee has only challenged the unexplained investments of Rs. 17,81,000/- before the Tribunal on the ground that the said item was not part of the limited scrutiny and therefore, the addition made by the AO is made by exceeding his jurisdiction. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.