“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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 194/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

declaring total income to the tune of Rs.10,04,840/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS with a tag “Limited scrutiny”. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 23.08.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee and subsequently notice

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Vapi

ITA 193/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

Shri Dhirubhai Gulabbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Navsari

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.217/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Dhirubhai Gulabhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, H No. At & Po – Rankuva, Patel Navsari-396445 Faliya, Taluka – Chikhli, Dist. Navsari - 396560. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aezpp2183C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144

Navsari vide letter No.ITBA/AIM/S/10/2016-17/1001657500(1), dated 24/02/2017.Despite ITA No.217/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Dhirubhai Gulabhai Patel such facts, Learned AO has erred in select the case for Limited Scrutiny under CASS on wrong and untrue footing further, learned CIT (A)/NFAC also failed to give any specific findings on the said issue which

Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

also engaged in development of plots. The assessee also engaged in grey fabric manufacturing and trading business. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny whether cash in hand shown in return of income is correct by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 19/09/2017. Thereafter ... year 2017-18. The assessee has shown cash balance of Rs. 24,91,375/- as on 31/03/2016 and thus the case was taken for limited scrutiny independently. As the assessee has shown large cash and not because of cash deposited of Rs. 62.00 lacs during demonization period. No addition

Income Tax Officer Ward-34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Omega Developers, Mumbai

ITA 1527/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. H.B. Bhatt, Sr. A.R

Section 131Section 144Section 68

stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the return of income filed by the assessee was subjected to limited scrutiny. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the capital amounting to Rs.23.49 crore was introduced by the assessee during the year under consideration. In order

Sv Agri Trade LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2959/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Amar GahlotFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected for limited scrutiny which was converted to complete scrutiny after taking approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-I, Mumbai, vide letter dated 13/03/2018. 3.3. During the assessment proceedings

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/04/2017 at returned income of Rs. 2,07,909/-. The case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ through the CASS to verify large share premium received during the year. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment

Gyan Prakash Shrivastava, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujain

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 401/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigyan Prakash Shrivastava Ito 2(1) 27/1, Kashpnak Marg, Ml Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Sashera Maidan, Ujjain, (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Axnps 4295 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2023

Section 62ASection 69A

return of income for the year under consideration on 27th July 2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,43,200/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with reason cash deposit during the demonetization period. The AO noted that the assesse has made total deposit of Rs.13

The Ferozpur Cantt Primary Co-Op Agri Dev. Bank Limited, Ferozpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range (III), Ferozpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 524/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

action of addition of Rs.2110786/- in the income of the assessee viz., The Ferozepur Cantt., Primary Agricultural Coop., Development Bank Ltd (PLMB) in the limited scrutiny case as per notice received from CASS, by relying upon the Judgment of Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producer Federation ... obtained as per the CBDT instructions. Since the assessing officer has not mentioned in his order the permission to convert the limited Scrutiny case into full scrutiny case hence orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. Range III, Ferozepur was ab initio void and illegal. Hence it is prayed

Bhushan Aviation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1423/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Bhushan Aviation Limited, Vs Acit, S-2, F Block, International Trade Circle-4(2), Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aadcb2842F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 Order

Section 260Section 271BSection 44A

return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring total income of NIL and claiming a loss of INR 45,14,448/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) initiated penalty u/s 271B of the Income

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. Spytech Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

been carried over to the subsequent assessment year. The return so filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS citing reasons for selection. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment by the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served ... submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings. 5.1 As per the assessment order of the AO, the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No Issues 1. Claim of Any other Amount Allowable as Deduction

Jbj Technologies Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2900/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

matter is proceeded on merits. 5. On merits, the ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 was subjected to limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on the limited point of ‘mismatch in custom duty payment’. The Assessing Officer while framing ... limited scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 06.11.2017, found no error or mismatch in such payment and accordingly accepted the income returned by the assessee at Rs.77,40,970/-. Thereafter, the rectification proceedings were initiated under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that

Navneet Bhardwaj, Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT Range-1, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ramit Kakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Commissioner of Income Tax in her order passed U/S 263 are incorrect, unreasonable and are untenable in law. 4. Drawing our attention towards original limited scrutiny assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.12.2018 for AY 2016-17, the ld. counsel submitted that the case was selected ... limited scrutiny for the sole reason of large cash deposit in the saving bank account as per AIR, total turnover and other income in part a of income tax return of assessee for which the Assessing Officer issue notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated

Kailash Chand Agrawal, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satna

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Kailash Chand Agrawal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 51, Pili Building Company Bag, Ward-1, Satna. Satna Pan : Ajlpa 3500B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

case are that the return of income was filed reflecting taxable income of Rs.18,15,510/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Capital Gains consideration in ITR is less than sale of property reported in AIR, large cash deposit”. Thereafter, the assessment was completed ... confirming the additions made by A.O in the assessment order in spite of the fact that the relevant additions were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and hence were against the law and natural justice. Accordingly the assessment order may kindly be quashed. 3. The CIT appeal erred

Panna Lal Mukharjee 1065/1, Shastri Nagar Medical College, Jabalpur vs. ITO2(3), Jabalpur

ITA 91/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Panna Lal Mukherjee, Vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3), 1065/1, Shastri Nagar, Near Jabalpur Medical College, Jabalpur (Mp) 482003 Pan : Afnpm 2253B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate & Shri Uma Parashar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

Section 69A

case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income at Rs.6,21,890/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason that the assessee had deposited substantial cash during the demonetization period as compared to the returned income. The assessee was required

Viney Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Viney Corporation Ltd., Vs Acit, E-872, 1St Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Circle-26(2), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacv0446L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Ms. Swati Joshi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)(iia)

that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2015, declaring total income of INR 22,74,13,620/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (“CASS”) and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 16.03.2016 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter

Manoranjan Lenka, Balanga vs. PCIT-1, Bhubanewsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.34/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Manoranjan Lenka, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar At/Po: Balanga, Dist : Puri, Odisha-752105 Pan No. :Addpl 7206 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/ 2021-22/1038323205(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 27 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Therein. Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. In View Of The Above & Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 13.08.2019 & It Was A Case Of Limited Scrutiny In Respect Of Large Cash Deposits In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

that the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 13.08.2019 and it was a case of limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposits in the bank 2 account during the year. It was the submission that the AO had after examining the issues treated ... cash deposit in the bank account was liable to be brought to tax. It was the submission that as this was a case of limited scrutiny in view of the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shark Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., passed

ACIT Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Manoj Raizada, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 5/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 & Co No. 28/Del/2021 Asstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)Section 46ASection 9

declaring income of Rs. 23,31,430/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. His case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. 6.1 In response to statutory notices issued during assessment proceedings, the assessee filed reply online through e-assessment portal from which ... appellant in support of his claim before me. From the perusal of the assessment order it is apparent that the case was taken for limited scrutiny for the reason of commission payment outside India but no corresponding TDS statement has been filed. Thus, the primary issue in the instant case

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

present case, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the year under consideration under the category of Limited Scrutiny and u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 19.09.2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Rewa. Further a letter was issued by the then

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

that assessee has filed return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 24,87,27,450/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the year under consideration the assessee is having business income from the business of contractors, sub-contractors, construction, builders, engineers, civil ... appeal has been preferred by the assessee company. 2. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 2.1. Case of the assessee company, for the relevant year, was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY u/s 143(3) on the following issues:- i. Refund Claim ii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A 2.2. Assessment was completed vide