Shri Kunjal Chandrakant Mehta, Ahmedabad V. ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2183/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1775 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] ITA. NO: 2183/AHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15) SHRI KUMJAL CHANDRAKANT MEHTA 201, SARANSH FLAT, OPP. ATUL PETROL PUMP, 22, MA SOCIETY, PALDI, AHMEDABAD-380007 PAN NO. AMTPM9342C THE I.T.O., WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEHUL THAKKAR, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -02-2021 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, J.M. 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HEREINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)) ORDER NO. CIT(A)-5/ITO. WD. ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 2 5(3)(1)/10531/16-17 ORDER DATED 14/08/2018 ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2016. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD IS ALSO ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LD. A. O. HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 83,67,590/- AND LD CIT(A)- 5, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME BEING THE DIFFERENCE WORKED OUT BY A.O. ON THE BASIS OF CASH BOOK SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. BOTH THE LD. A. O. AND CIT(A)-5,AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER CASH OUTFLOWS ALSO OVER AND ABOVE THE CASH DEPOSITED INTO BANK OF RS. 1,39,85,200/-BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 83,67,590/-, WHEN THE MONTH WISE DETAILS OF CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH EXPENSES WERE SUBMITTED TO A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME ARE ON RECORD. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT LD. A.O. SELECTED ASSESSEES CASE FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) R.W.S. 129 WERE ISSUED. 3. THAT AS PER AIR DATA INFORMATION, ASSESSE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,79,70,400/- WITH CORPORATION BANK AND AS PER CIT INFORMATION THE ASSESSE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 19,75,800/- WITH HDFC BANK AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,99,46,200/-. ASSESSEE ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSE STATED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR DEPOSITING INTO THE BANK. BUT LD. A.O. WAS NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 83,67,590/-. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) S BUT SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CLAIM DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND ASSESEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 3 5. NOW ASSESSE HAS FILED SECOND STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND: THE HUGE ADDITION OF RS. 83,67,590/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN ABSENCE OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD'S INSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF 'CASS' ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF BOARD'S INSTRUCTION, WHICH ARE BINDING UPON THE AO IS CERTAINLY BAD IN LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO, MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED AND ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. THE GROUND RAISED ABOVE IS A LEGAL GROUND AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ABOVE GROUND, IN OUR BELIEF, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF NEW FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6. AS ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND, WE ADMIT THE SAME. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGNED ORDERS AND HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AND LD. A.R. RELIED ON A CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 20/2015 [F. NO. 225/269/2015-ITA-II], DATED 29/12/2015 WHEREIN AT PAGE NO. 2 AND PARA NO. 3 TO 5 IT HAS BEEN MENTION THEREIN: 3. AS FAR AS THE RETURNS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS-2015 ARE CONCERNED, TWO TYPE OF CASES HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR- ONE IS 'LIMITED SCRUTINY1 AND OTHER IS 'COMPLETE SCRUTINY'. THE ASSESSEES CONCERNED HAVE DULY BEEN INTIMATED ABOUT THEIR CASES FALLING EITHER IN 'LIMITED SCRUTINY1 OR 'COMPLETE SCRUTINY' THROUGH NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT'). THE PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING 'LIMITED SCRUTINY1 CASES SHALL BE AS UNDER: A. IN 'LIMITED SCRUTINY' CASES, THE REASONS/ISSUES SHALL BE FORTHWITH COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED. B. THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT IN 'LIMITED SCRUTINY' CASES SHALL REMAIN CONFINED ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC REASONS/ISSUES FOR WHICH CASE HAS BEEN PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. FURTHER, THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE 'LIMITED SCRUTINY' ISSUES. C. THESE CASES SHALL BE COMPLETED EXPEDITIOUSLY IN A LIMITED NUMBER OF HEARINGS. ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 4 D. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN 'LIMITED SCRUTINY' CASES, IF IT COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME EXCEEDING RS. FIVE LAKHS (FOR METRO CHARGES, THE MONETARY LIMIT SHALL BE RS. TEN LAKHS) REQUIRING SUBSTANTIAL VERIFICATION ON ANY OTHER ISSUE(S), THEN, THE CASE MAY BE TAKEN UP FOR 'COMPLETE SCRUTINY' WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PR. CIT/CIT CONCERNED. HOWEVER, SUCH AN APPROVAL SHALL BE ACCORDED BY THE PR. CIT/CIT IN WRITING AFTER BEING SATISFIED ABOUT MERITS OF THE ISSUE(S) NECESSITATING 'COMPLETE SCRUTINY' IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE. SUCH CASES SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE RANGE HEAD CONCERNED. THE PROCEDURE INDICATED AT POINTS (A), (B) AND (C) ABOVE SHALL NO LONGER REMAIN BINDING IN SUCH CASES. (FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE, 'METRO CHARGES' WOULD MEAN DELHI, MUMBAI, CHENNAI, KOLKATA, BENGALURU, HYDERABAD AND AHMEDABAD). 4. THE BOARD FURTHER DESIRES THAT IN ALL CASES UNDER SCRUTINY, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO MAKE ADDITIONS OR DISALLOWANCES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION ON THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DULY INDICATING THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES/REASONS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE SAME. BEFORE PASSING THE FINAL ORDER AGAINST THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES, DUE CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. 5. THE CONTENTS OF THIS INSTRUCTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL CONCERNED FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE. 8. AND ALSO CITED CBDT CIRCULAR NO. DGIT(VIG.)/HQ/SI/2017-18], DATED 30.11.2017: CBDT HAS ISSUED DETAILED GUIDELINES/DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF CASES OF LIMITED SCRUTINY SELECTED THROUGH CASS MODULE. THESE GUIDELINES POSTULATE THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICER, IN LIMITED SCRUTINY CASES, CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS SELECTED. THE IDEA BEHIND SUCH STIPULATIONS WAS TO ENFORCE CHECKS AND BALANCES UPON POWERS OF AN AO TO DO FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN CASES SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. 2. FURTHER, THE GUIDELINES FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE OF ORDER SHEETS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE MANUAL OF OFFICE PROCEDURE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES. THE MANUAL CLEARLY LAYS DOWN: A. THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING MUST BE ENTERED WITH DATE, IN THE ORDER-SHEET. B. MAKE PROPER ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES FOR EACH POSTING, HEARING AND SEEKING AND GRANTING OF ADJOURNMENTS. ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 5 C. IF NOBODY ATTENDS A HEARING OR THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT COMES AFTER THE HEARING DATE, ENTER THE FACTS IN THE ORDER-SHEET. MAINTENANCE OF A CURSORY AND CRYPTIC ORDER SHEET SHOWS IRRESPONSIBLE, AD HOC AND UNDISCIPLINED WORKING OF ANY OFFICER. 3. INSTANCES HAVE COME TO NOTICE OF CBDT WHERE SOME ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE TRAVELLING BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTION WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENTS IN LIMITED SCRUTINY CASES BY INITIATING INQUIRIES ON NEW ISSUES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE RELEVANT CBDT INSTRUCTIONS DATED 26-9-2014, 29-12-2015 AND 14-7-2016. THESE INSTANCES HAVE BEEN VIEWED VERY SERIOUSLY BY THE CBDT AND IN ONE CASE THE CENTRAL INSPECTION TEAM OF THE CBDT WAS TASKED WITH EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS ON RECEIPT OF ALLEGATIONS OF SEVERAL IRREGULARITIES. AMONGST OTHER IRREGULARITIES, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO REASONS HAD BEEN RECORDED FOR EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY, NO APPROVAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE PCIT FOR CONVERSION OF THE LIMITED SCRUTINY CASE TO A COMPLETE SCRUTINY CASE AND THE ORDER SHEET WAS MAINTAINED VERY PERFUNCTORILY. THIS GAVE RISE TO A VERY STRONG SUSPICION OF MALA FIDE INTENTIONS. THE OFFICER CONCERNED HAS BEEN PLACED UNDER SUSPENSION. 9. LD. A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) MENTIONING THAT THERE IS MISMATCH BETWEEN INCOME/RECEIPT CREDITED TO P & L ACCOUNT CONSIDERED UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME AND INCOME FROM HEADS OF INCOME FROM OTHER THAN BUSINESS INCOME. 10. PLEASE RECONCILE THE SAME WITH COMPLETE DETAILS AND FURTHER NOTICED THAT AS PER AIR DATA, YOU HAVE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,79,70,400/- WITH CORPORATION BANK AND AS PER CIB INFORMATION YOU HAVE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 19,75,800/- WITH HDFC BANK AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,99,46,200/-. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME IS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 11. IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE, ASSESSE FURNISHED HIS REPLY ON 12.09.2016. 12. THEREAFTER A.O. ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER U/S. 142(1) SAYING THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WERE UTILIZED FOR DEPOSITING INTO THE BANK. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE REQUIRED TO STATE THE MONTH WISE WITHDRAWALS AND MONTH WISE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK FOR VERIFICATION. ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 6 13. IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE, ASSESSE SUBMITTED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS ON 18.11.2016. 14. THEREAFTER LD. A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 13/12/2016 STATING THAT: 2. FROM THE DETAILS OF MONTH WISE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND CASH DEPOSITS FURNISHED WITH YOUR LETTER DTD. 18.11.2016, IT IS NOTICED THAT YOU ARE WITHDRAWING CASH FROM THE BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSITING THE SAME INTO THE BANK. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IT IS NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.2,46,07,700/- FROM BANKS WHICH WERE- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. SINCE YOU ARE A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY PROFESSION, THERE IS LITTLE CHANCE TO GET SUCH CASH FROM THE PROFESSION TO DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. IN CASE YOU HAVE TAKEN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- FROM YOUR CLIENTS, PLEASE FURNISH A CHART SHOWING THE NAME, COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESS AND PAN FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THEIR HANDS. VIDE YOUR LETTER DTD. 19.9.2016 YOU HAVE CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF WITHDRAWALS OF CASH ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WERE UTILIZED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. WHY YOUR EXPLANATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AS NOBODY WOULD WITHDRAW CASH FROM BANK FOR DEPOSING THE SAME TO THE BANK. THIS ARGUMENT BEING UNBELIEVABLE TO ACCEPT, PLEASE SHOW CAUSE WHY SUCH CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.2,46,07,700/- SHOWN TO HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM BANK SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE. 2.1 VIDE YOUR LETTER DTD. 19.9.2016 YOU HAVE CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF WITHDRAWALS OF CASH ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WERE UTILIZED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. FOR WITHDRAWING AMOUNT FROM BANK, THERE MUST BE SOURCE IS THE BANK ACCOUNT. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 2.2 FROM THE DETAILS FILED, IT IS NOTICED THAT TOTAL WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,46,07,700/- WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN FACT, THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ARE OF RS.2,99,46,200/-. THUS, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.53,38,500/-. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 2.3 FROM THE STATEMENT SHOWING BANK WITHDRAWALS AND BANK DEPOSITS, IT IS NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE ALSO SHOWN VARIOUS DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,27,38,451/- UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES, TEA~& COFFEE, CONVEYANCE, JIYA PATEL, RAJLABDHI INFRA PVT.LTD., ADVANCE AGAIN PROPERTY -BADAL SHAH, ETC. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THE SAME. VIDE LETTER DTD. 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2016, YOU HAD BEEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THEIR SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSITS. FURTHER, YOU HAD BEEN ASKED TO STATE THAT IF THE SAME IS FROM ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 7 CASH SALES, PLEASE FURNISH MONTHWISE CASH SALES AND MONTHWISE CASH DEPOSITS. SINCE YOU ARE A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR MONTHLY INCOME BY CASH AND MONTHLY CASH DEPOSITS. 4. AS PER INFORMATION FROM SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX RETURN (STT RETURN), YOU HAVE DONE TRANSACTIONS WORTH RS. 12,71,23,487/-. THOUGH YOU HAD BEEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND FURNISH A TRADING ACCOUNT AND ALSO STATE MONTHWISE PURCHASE AND SALES AND MONTHWIWSE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, YOU HAVE SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS AFFORDED TO YOU VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DTD. 11.11.2016. IN RESPONSE THERETO, VIDE LETTER DTD. 18.11.2016 YOU HAVE CONTENDED THAT YOUR BROKER HAS SENT CLIENT FINANCIAL ACCOUNT SHOWILY NIL TRANSACTION AND HENCE ASKED FOR FURNISHING THE DATA AS PER ITS, WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN REQUESTED TO FURNISH A TRADING ACCOUNT AND ALSO STATE MONTHWISE PURCHASE AND SALES AND MONTHWIWSE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. IN CASE YOU FAIL TO FURNISH THESE DETAILS ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVE NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND ACCORDINGLY 1% OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 12,71,230/-WOULD BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME TREATING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME. 15. IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE, ASSESSE FURTHER REPLIED TO THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 15/12/2016 GIVING ALL THE DETAILS. 16. THEREAFTER LD. A.O. ISSUED AGAIN NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 MENTIONING TIME BARRING/FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE MENTIONING THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,42,01,015/- MENTIONING THEREBY ASSESSE HAS MADE MORE WITHDRAWAL AGAINST THE AVAILABLE DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,06,63,665/-. AND FURTHER ASKED ASSESSE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. 17. WE HAVE SEEN THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED FOUR NOTICES U/S. 142(1) ALL THE NOTICES WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE LD. A.O. THOUGH ASSESSEE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY BUT IN EACH FACTS, LD. A.O. WENT BEYOND CONTENTS OF EARLIER FACTS. ITA NO. 2183/AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2014-15 8 18. AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR, LD. A.O. CAN ONLY EXAMINE THOSE ISSUES WHICH THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED OR THE ISSUES MENTIONED THEREIN. IF THE A.O. OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, HE MAY CONVERT THE LIMITED SCRUTINY IN TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY. BUT VIEW SHOULD BE REASONABLE VIEW BASED ON CREDIBLE AVAILABLE OR MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AND IN THIS CASE, APPROVAL OF THE PR.CIT/CIT IS REQUIRED AND SUCH APPROVAL SHALL BE ACCORDED BY THE PR.CIT/CIT IN WRITING AFTER BEING SATISFIED ABOUT MERIT OF THE ISSUES. 19. NECESSITATING COMPLETE SCRUTINY IN THAT CASE BUT IN THE CASE IN OUR HAND, NO PRIOR PERMISSION WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE. THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE CASE WAS MISTAKEN CASH DEPOSIT WHICH IS ASSESSING OFFICER EXTENDED TO OTHER ISSUES SUCH AS HOW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT CAN DEPOSIT SUCH HUGE CASH DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL THE CASH. 20. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SAME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW PARTICULARLY WHEN CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE IS ALLOWED ON LEGAL GROUND HOWEVER WE DO NOT WANT TO GO INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22- 02- 2021 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 22/02/2021 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)