“limited scrutiny”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)2,866 judgments

The decision most relied on for limited scrutiny is Vipan Khanna v. CIT (255 ITR 220), cited in 140 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on limited scrutiny

Vipan Khanna v. CIT

255 ITR 220 · 2002 · High Court

140

citing judgments

Assessment proceedings conclude and become final if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is not served within the prescribed statutory period. This case also clarified the historical position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT

361 ITR 458 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The selection of cases for scrutiny must be completed within the time prescribed by CBDT instructions. The department is bound by its own standards and cannot act with discrimination or selectively apply them.

PCIT v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd.

155 Taxmann.com 580 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

Assessing officers cannot introduce issues for inquiry that were not part of the original limited scrutiny, without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements.

Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT

125 Taxmann.com 83 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the scope of issues selected for limited scrutiny during the assessment proceedings.

PCIT v. Shark Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd.

151 Taxmann.com 71 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

Revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked to find fault with an assessment order on an issue not covered by 'limited scrutiny' where the Assessing Officer could not have examined such an issue.

CIT v. Smt. Padmavathi

120 Taxmann.com 187 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to revenue if the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have travelled beyond the issues forming the subject matter of 'limited scrutiny'. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke Section 263 to set aside an assessment on grounds not forming part of the limited scrutiny.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another

246 ITR 173 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer can initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 even if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed time, provided the conditions for Section 147 are met. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) does not preclude recourse to Section 147.

Judgments citing limited scrutiny

Jaiprakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 310/AHD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

because of AIR Information under CASS and the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A Nos. 310 /Ahd/2022

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 312/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 311/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

Kalli Narayana Appa Rao, W.G.Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 197/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.197 /Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kalli Narayana Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-57-1, Bavi Veedhi, Ward-2 Poola, Bhimadole Mandal Eluru West Godavari [Pan : Alppk9004Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Kalli Narayana Appa Rao, West Godavari Dist. of Rs.9,36,450/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued show cause letter to the assessee and after considering the assessee’s explanation in reply

DCIT-Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. India Bullion and Jewellers Association Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

return of income was processed under section 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. Subsequently, the case was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response, Authorised Representative

M/S V-Con Integrated Solutions Private Limited, Mohali vs. The PCIT, Chandigarh-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 232/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 232/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Pcit, Plot F-141, Phase-8B, Mohali, Chandigarh-1. Rupnagar. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabci9928H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80J

pertaining to 2018-19 assessment year. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on three issues : i) Refund Claim (ii) Share Capital/other capital (iii) Deduction or total income under Chapter ... appeal before us. 7. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on three issues i.e., (i) Refund Claim (ii) Share Capital/other capital (iii) Deduction or total income under Chapter VI-A. The ld. counsel

Sarwar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 493/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.493/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Sarwar Ahuja Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-6(1) Pan:Ahkpa9724E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2/8/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On 21/11/2023. However, Due To Non-Appearance By Anyone On The Date Of Hearing, The Case Was Adjourned To 15.2.2024 & Notice Was Issued Through Rpad Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee & The Acknowledgment Placed On Record. However, On 15.2.2024 When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called There Was Neither Anyone Present For The Assessee Nor Any Application

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

salary and house property. He filed his return of income on 25/07/2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,70,100/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the Investment in Immovable Property. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee in response

Urmil Sharma, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 67(4), Delhi

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

ITA 3210/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

declaring total income of Rs. 9,58,810/- and claimed refund of Rs. 890/-. The case was selected for the limited scrutiny vide notice dated 24.09.2018 issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the issue for examination was identified as cash deposits. 4. During the period

Keshav Kanungo, Bhopal vs. ACIT2(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 263/IND/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 54Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

assessee-individual submitted return of income for AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 31,02,140/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine ‘large claim of exemption u/s 54B to 54GA’ and the AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). During assessment-proceeding

Seema Jethani, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2014/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.21,60,630/-. It was taken up for limited scrutiny. It was noticed that the assessee has sold two properties and accordingly declared long term capital gains thereon. During the course of scrutiny proceedings

True-Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1158/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Even for AY 2012-13, though the case of M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd., was selected for the limited scrutiny for examining the unaccounted income of Rs.20,00,000/-and for this purpose all the details of M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd. including audited balance sheet and details of share

Nataraja Kailar, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 96/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

agricultural income of Rs.19,46,880. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 11.03.2018 resulting in ND. The case was selected for limited scrutiny of “Cash Page 2 of 4 deposit during demonetization period”. Statutory notices were duly served on the assessee and the assessee furnished details

North Facing Real Tech Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 976/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Snehal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

under:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that he has issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act in the `LIMITED SCRUTINY' category under CASS to verify justification of `SHARE PREMIUM' and he has actually gone beyond the reason mentioned while selection of the case ... Appellant for limited scrutiny. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that similar notices were issued under `LIMITED SCRUTINY' category under CASS for A.Y 2016-17 and A.Y 2017-18 respectively and no adverse view has been taken by the Department at least as far as justification

M/S Effiel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Ld.JCIT, (OSD), Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 543/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 40aSection 56(2)(viib)

declaring a taxable income of Rs.21,00,167/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19.09.2017 and was served on the assessee. Subsequently, a questionnaire alongwith statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) were

M/S Effiel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 542/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 40aSection 56(2)(viib)

Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

under the head “Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Stock valuation ii. Income/Capital Gain

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

ITA 498/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

under the head “Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I