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

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)].
2. 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

2
Jaydip Dhar due to which the assessee could not attend to his work. Consequently, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 juri iction. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
6. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record. We find that undoubtedly the case was selected for limited scrutiny for large cash deposit into bank account. Further, the additions were made inter alia by the AO in respect of unexplained investment of Rs. 17,81,000/- which is obviously beyond the juri iction of the AO as 3
434/Chad/2019 for AY 2014-15. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.
7. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 19.12.2025 (Rajesh Kumar)
Accountant Member
Dated: 19.12.2025
AK,Sr.P.S.

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. Pr. CIT
4. CIT(A)

////
By order