The Tribunal by relying on CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891(SC), CIT v. Union Tyers (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) (HC), CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi))(HC), held that the jurisdiction of CIT(A) does not extend to introducing an altogether new source of income. Where AO treated entire sale consideration on sale of land as long term capital gains the CIT(A) could not have treated part of sale consideration as business profits. (AY. 2012-13)
Rangnathappa Govindappa Zharkhande v. ITO (2022) 144 taxmann.com 152 / (2023) 198 ITD 290 (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Capital gains-Cannot be assessed as sale consideration-New source of income-Jurisdiction of CIT(A) does not extend to introducing altogether new source of income. [S. 250]