, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, SMC, CHANDIGARH , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 434/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, H. NO. 90/2, CHAH MUGLA, MOHLLA, OLD LAL BAGH, PATIALA PUNJAB 147001 VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATIALA ./PAN NO: AJJPK3728R / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KULDEEP DHIMAN, ADVOCATE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. ROHIT MEHRA, SR.DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2019 / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X APPEAL (S) PATIALA IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST FACTS OF THE CASE . 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL (S) PATIALA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/ - ON CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE LIMITED SCRUTINY. ITA NO.434-CHD-2019 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, PATIALA 2 A.) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 282500/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF GROSS RECEIPT WHICH SHOWN IN INCOME TAX RETURN. B.) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION ON CASH DEPOSITED WHICH WAS NOT BASES OF THE OPENING OF LIMITED SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES AN D INSTRUCTION OF CBDT DATED 29/12/2015, 14/06/2016. C.) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION WITHOU T ISSUING PROPER SHOW CAUSES NOTICE WHILE MAKE ADVERSE VIEW OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN ERRED IN COMPUTIN G TAX UNDER SECTION 115BBE OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL (S) PATIALA IS ERRED IN ILLEGALLY CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELE TE ANY OF THE GROUNDS (S) OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY HEARD. 3. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO NS HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION. THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY ISSUE I.E. REGARDING SECURITY TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT FIND ANY REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IN R ESPECT OF ISSUE FOR WHICH THE LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS DONE. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE THE CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS FOR WHICH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION. ITA NO.434-CHD-2019 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, PATIALA 3 4. THE LD. DR HAS BEEN FAIR ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT TH E IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES, WHEREAS, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELEC TED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY RELATING TO SECURITY TRANSACTIONS 5. I FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, BEING EXCEEDING HIS JURISDICTION ARE NOT SUSTAINABL E IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT IMMEDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING. SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12. 09.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR