MAHENDRA SHAMBHULAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD (EXISTING WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD

That the learned CIT(Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not quashing the assessment order under section 143(3) passed by the Ld.AO as the order passed by the Ld AO is without juri iction, against the law and facts, in particular, the Ld.AO has Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– converted limited scrutiny assessment into complete scrutiny assessment, without obtaining approval of the Ld. PCIT and therefore the Order passed by Assessing Officer is required to be quashed and the Id.AO should be direct the accept the returned income.

That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not allowing the deduction of Interest paid on Housing Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore the learned AO should be directed to allow the said interest paid on Housing Loan while computing the total income.

That the learned CIT(Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act, of the sale value of gold for Rs.6,50,027/-though full details of sales has been provided to the learned AO and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income.

That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting the addition made for unsecured loan of Rs.77,00,000/-treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income.

That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by set-asiding the assessment order to the file of the leaned AO, though he does not have power to set aside the assessment order as the order passed by the learned AO is not under section 144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the learned is bad in law and therefore the Id.AO should be directed to accept the returned income.

That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The case was selected for limited scrutiny in order to examine as to (i) whether sales turnover/receipts has been correctly offered tax and (ii) whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed. At the conclusion of the assessment the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of disallowance of interest u/s.24B, unexplained income, unexplained cash credits. Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 3– 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds taken by the assessee of expanding the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny without the permission of the PCIT. Further Ld.PCIT without adjudicating the grounds on merits set-aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We direct that Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order de-novo shall restrict the enquiries to the reasons selected for limited scrutiny and shall not expand the ambit of scrutiny as approval of the PCIT has not been obtained during the original Assessment proceedings. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard file.