Case Law Details
Kintukumar Ambalal Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The issue raised by the assessee in additional ground is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny assessment to complete scrutiny without necessary approval.
Ld. AR further claimed that the Assessing Officer has converted the “Limited Scrutiny” to the normal/regular scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act, on the basis of document received from Revenue authority without taking necessary approval from the appropriate authority.
On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that the AO has examined the property sold during the year and arrived at the conclusion that the assessee is carrying out the business of property development. Hence he has not traveled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.
On perusal of the notice for “Limited Scrutiny” we find that there was no mentioning/whisper about examination of the fact whether the assessee was engaged in the business of property development. Accordingly, we hold that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by denying the deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee is engaged in the business of property development as the same was not mandated under the ‘L’imited Scrutiny ” notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
