AO Cannot Travel Beyond Scope of Section 263 Directions – ITAT Upholds Deletion of Fresh Additions

ACIT Vs Ajay Kumar (ITAT Delhi)

AO Cannot Travel Beyond Scope of Section 263 Directions – ITAT Upholds Deletion of Fresh Additions

The Delhi ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer while passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 in the case of the assessee. The Tribunal held that once the Principal CIT had set aside the original assessment only for limited verification of agricultural income credited to the capital account, the AO could not expand the scope of proceedings and once again estimate business profits or revisit additions already adjudicated in earlier appellate proceedings.

The ITAT noted that the issue relating to estimation of net profit on turnover had already been decided in the original appellate proceedings where the CIT(A) had reduced the profit rate from 8% to 3%. Despite this, the AO again estimated profit at 8% while giving effect to the section 263 order. Similarly, the AO revisited addition u/s 68 relating to ₹49 lakh though that issue was not part of the PCIT’s revision directions and had already been partly deleted in earlier appellate proceedings. The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the jurisdiction conferred under section 263 by re-examining matters beyond the limited remand directions. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order deleting both additions, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in entirety.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 28.05.2025 for the A.Y. 2014-15, arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.

2. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was moved, therefore, this appeal is disposed off on hearing the Ld. DR.

3. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :-

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in applying a net profit of 3% on the turnover, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of reliable books of accounts, as against 8% applied by the Assessing Officer?

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,78,600/out of addition of Rs.49,00,000/- made u/s 6B of the IT. Act, 1961, despite the assessee’s failure to fully discharge the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction as required under law?

4. In so far as the ground No.1 is concerned which is in respect of estimation of net profit @ 8% on the turnover by the AO and deletion of such estimation of net profit by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition for the reason that the Ld. PCIT had originally set aside the assessment u/s.263 of the Act and directed to only examine the genuineness of agricultural income credited to the capital account. The estimation of net profit on the turnover was subject matter before the ld. CIT(A) against original assessment order wherein Ld. CIT(A) reduced the net profit to 3% and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the AO exceeded the jurisdiction by once again estimating the net profit @8% though the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. This ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

5. Similarly coming to the addition made u/s.68 of the Act, we observed that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition for the reason that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order pursuant to the direction u/s.263 of the Act by the Ld.PCIT for the reason that this addition was not subject matter of direction in the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. Further we observed that the addition made u/s.68 of the Act of Rs.49 lacs was reduced by the Ld. CIT(A) to Rs.31,24,400/- in the appeal filed by the assessee against the original assessment order. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that since the AO while giving effect to the order of the Ld. PCIT u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act once again made this addition by exceeding his jurisdiction. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition. This ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2026.