← All Phrases

“scrutiny assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)7,671 judgments

The decision most relied on for scrutiny assessment is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on scrutiny assessment

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.
188 ITR 44 · 1991 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court
194
citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

Narayanappa v. CIT
63 ITR 219 · 1967 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5
288 ITR 322 · 2007 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

Judgments citing scrutiny assessment

Bina Metal Way Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1403/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bina Metal Way Pvt. Ltd.,........................Appellant Ah-138, Salt Lake, Sector-Ii, Kolkata-700091, West Bengal [Pan: Aabcb1511D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 154

filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs.2,61,12,312/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed an assessment order

Mr.Raja, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-19(7), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed

ITA 1318/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramesh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

business. The assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 on 21.02.2018. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason that the assessee has made cash deposit in demonetized currency during demonetization period in the bank account maintained with

Muthu Gounder Palanisamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(7), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed

ITA 1306/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Kandan Tyres. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 01.02.2018 and assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS by issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018. The AO noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits during demonetization

Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-19(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1297/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1297/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Saravanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.66, Non-Corporate Ward 19(3), Manali Ramakrishna Avenue, Chennai. Ambal Nagar, Mangadu, Chennai – 600 122. Pan : Brtps 0567F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

sales. The assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 on 15.12.2017. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason that cash deposits are made during demonetization period. The AO noticed from the bank statement that the assessee ... cash deposit in demonetized currency during the demonetization period is out of cash sales has already been reported to the Income-tax Department before scrutiny assessment in e-proceeding response by stating as under:- “Cash Deposit Rs.865000 during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 15.12.2016 is Highlighted by way of colour

Mahalinga Textiles, Theni vs. ITO, Ward-1, Theni

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed

ITA 1296/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.86,500/- filed on 01.12.2015. The return of income for assessment year 2015-16 was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to above notices, assessee produced books of accounts, bank account statement

Rampur Mahila Upbhokta Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Rampur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Rampur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3881/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

referred to as the “Act”), however, there was no response on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis that during demonetization period the assessee had cash deposits of Rs.18,50,000/-. Vide order dated

Intekhab Husain, Moradabad vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Moradabad - New

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3877/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 3Section 69A

issued u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis that during demonetization period the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 25,22,000/-. Vide order

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Ufo Moviez India Limited, Vs Addl.Cit-27, Office No.12, 3Rd Floor, C. R. Building, Valuable Techno Park, Plot New Delhi. No.53/1, Road No.07, Marol Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-4000093. Pan-Aabcv8900E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm By Way Of This Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

assessee is engaged in the business of digital cinema for AY 2014-15 under consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 16.12.2016 passed assessment order u/s 143(2) of the Act, disallowed the expenditure by invoking the provision

Kgvk Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 549/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 115BSection 2Section 263Section 68

return of income on 27.10.2018 electronically and disclosed a loss of Rs.1,57,21,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and an assessment order under section 2 KGVK Agro Limited 143(3) was passed on 20.02.2021 at a negative income

Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-292), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1261/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.,......................Appellant 14, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 17, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aahca4737A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

assessment order submitted that the return of income was filed on 12.10.2017 declaring ‘NIL’ income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16.08.2018. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notices under section 142(1) on different dates

Tanuj Properties Private Limited., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1045/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Darshan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd……………….…………....Appellant 6Th Floor, Unit-6A, 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kolkata - 700020 [Pan: Aacct4910B] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata…………….................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 147/143(3) Was Passed By The A.O Who Did Not Hold Valid Jurisdiction & Therefore The Impugned Order Being Ab Initio Void Deserves To Be Quashed. B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existent Entity & In

Section 147Section 148Section 250

petitioner filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring an income of Rs.12.52 lacs (rounded off). The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment by the Assessing Officer. On 1.11.2013 the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the Act enhancing the petitioner's income to Rs.20.14

Diksha Manijari, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2661/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

assessee contended that immediately in the preceding year i.e. AY 2015-16 its case was examined by the AO in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and exemption was allowed to the assessee. The ld. first appellate authority after going through the case of the assessee, passed ... would suggest that ld. CIT(A) has passed the order against the disallowance on 28.03.2018. Before ld. CIT(A), assessee has relied upon the scrutiny assessment in AY 2015-16. The allowance of this deduction has been upheld by the first appellate authority in AY 2015-16. Copy of this

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S Jkm Investment Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 274

filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.10,42,91,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) as well as 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Grass Valley India Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2796/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Misra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

assessee filed e-return declaring taxable income at ‘NIL’ for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in question. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that assessee has provided part details. A show cause notice dated

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1811/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that return of income filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 07.02.2014. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 07.10.2016 after recording ... Having heard the rival representatives, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. 8. During the course of scrutiny assessment, vide notice dated 09.05.2013, the Assessing Officer sought clarification from the assessee in respect of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act and the assessee has filed

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that return of income filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 07.02.2014. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 07.10.2016 after recording ... Having heard the rival representatives, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. 8. During the course of scrutiny assessment, vide notice dated 09.05.2013, the Assessing Officer sought clarification from the assessee in respect of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act and the assessee has filed

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajinderkaur Sarabjitsingh Bagai L/H Rajvit Bagai, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.3,82,960/-. The assessee passed away on 10.12.2013. The Return of Income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and thereafter taken for scrutiny assessment. Regular assessment u/s.143(3) was made in the name of the legal heir vide order dated 04.12.2015 making an addition of Rs.76,667/- which ... inclusive of addition of default in payment of PF & ESIC. After completing of the scrutiny assessment, the A.O. found that the assessee has not deposited employees PF & ESI contribution before the “due date” as prescribed in the respective Act. Hence a notice u/s. 154 of the Act was issued

DCIT - CC- 3, Thane vs. Ajiv Yashwant Patil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 610/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Ajiv Yashwant Patil Acit, Central Circle-3 103, Parijat Apartments, Gaothan, Thane Vs. Virar (W), Thane-401 303

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: 22.11.2023
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

contended that the cash transaction found in the seized papers are already declared in the original ITR filed by the assessee. There was no scrutiny assessment done in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2008-09 for which the only requirement to initiate the proceeding ... assessee. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that there was no scrutiny assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the assessee’s case during the impugned year and based on the information received from Investigation Wing that

Ajiv Yashwnat Patil, Thane vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 549/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Ajiv Yashwant Patil Acit, Central Circle-3 103, Parijat Apartments, Gaothan, Thane Vs. Virar (W), Thane-401 303

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: 22.11.2023
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

contended that the cash transaction found in the seized papers are already declared in the original ITR filed by the assessee. There was no scrutiny assessment done in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2008-09 for which the only requirement to initiate the proceeding ... assessee. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that there was no scrutiny assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the assessee’s case during the impugned year and based on the information received from Investigation Wing that