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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sunita Jain, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 125/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

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

same was processed under section 143(1) of 4 the I.T. Act,1961 at the same figure. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 09.08.2018 and duly served upon the assessee within stipulated ... information. In response to the notices, the assessee filed reply from time to time and placed on record. 2. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the following ground:- “Cash deposits during demonetization period” 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, while examining theexpenses it was found that

Kosuru Saratchandra Gopikrishna, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kosuru Sarathchandra Gopikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.16-370/1 Ward-4(3) Skml Nagar, Arilova Colony Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Btbpk1506Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 271

income, admitting taxable income of Rs.2,46,710/- under the head ‘income from business’ and ‘income from other sources’. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “cash deposit during the year”. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed APT online certificate, valid from

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny for enquiry as to whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources— Assessee's Authorised Representative produced books of account including cash book, ledger

Marturi Srinivasa Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Marturi Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-75, 2Nd Line Ward-1(1) Rajeev Nagar Colony Guntur Atchampet Post, Guntur [Pan : Bvnpm4138E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Income of Rs.4,21,640/- declared in the return filed for Assessment Year 2017-18 claiming TDS of Rs.30,896/-. The case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of cash deposit during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer on going through

Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited, Kakinada vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115VSection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92E

income of Rs. 3,53,810/- which was subsequently revised U/s. 139(5) on 20/08/2018 admitting the same income. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. Notice U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In support of its return the assessee filed

Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infrastures Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

impugned order passed under section 263. It is manifest from the record that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny as per the notice issued under section 143(2) dated 19.09.2016, the relevant part of the said notice listing the issues identified for examination ... income on 26/09/2016 at 11:00 AM in the Office of the undersigned." Thus it is clear that the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of purchase of property and deduction claimed under the head Capital Gains. Both these issues are inter-connected as the deduction under

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1150/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit- 14(1)(2) Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Kalpataru Synergy, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Mumbai-400020 Opp. Grand Gyatt Hote. Mumbai-400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv9092R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Aggarwal : Shri. Prakash Choughule Revenue By : 04.07.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AggarwalFor Respondent: 04.07.2023

Section 250

other sources and had carry forward losses of current year amounting to Rs. 40,08,26,067/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment order dated 09.04.2021 was passed by the Ld. AO determining total loss at Rs. 37,47,53,767/- by making an addition/disallowance

Nikhil Yogi, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int. Taxation-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Nikhil Yogi, Vs. Dcit, 670, Block Gh-09, Circle- International Paschim Vihar, Taxation-3(1)(1) New Delhi – 110 087 New Delhi. Pan Abqpy8641L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

resident individual. He filed his return of income on 01.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 8,77,600/-. His case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) gathered information from the banks under section 133(6) of the Income

Hukum Singh, Ambikapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 136/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.136/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Hukum Singh Near Pahuna Shop, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) Pan : Atpps6279P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

neither erroneous not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the case was originally selected for “limited scrutiny” and the issues raised in proceedings u/s. 263 were not covered by the scope of “limited scrutiny” and consequently, the assessment order could ... issue “whether deduction claimed on account of depreciation is admissible”. Considering the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited scrutiny assessment”, we concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that as per CBDT Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015, the scrutinizing of the assessee’s case

Abhishek Purohit, Sagar vs. ITO Ward (3) Sagar, Sagar

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

declaring income from business at Rs.3,40,120/- and income from other sources at Rs.67,602/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS guidelines for the reason “large cash deposit in Saving Bank Account(s) (AIR, Total turnover and other income in Part

Pingash Home Appliances Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena and Shyam Sunder, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(2)Section 251(1)Section 271Section 56Section 56(2)Section 68

appellant on protective basis u/s. 56(2) (viib) r.w.r. 11UA of IT rules without appreciating the fact that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify “whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources and have been correctly offered to tax” which restrict ... that assessee filed its return of income on 28.08.2016, reporting total income of Rs.2,68,160. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “whether refund received in the form o f share premium are from disclosed sources”. Statutory notices under Section

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 271ASection 44A

assessment year 2015- 2016 showing a total income of Rs.1,83,860/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. In response, the counsel of the assessee attended the proceedings and the case was discussed in detail

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 271ASection 44A

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 271ASection 44A

Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

30/09/2015 declaring ‘Nil’ income and claiming carried forward losses of INR 158,42,27,177/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). On perusal of return of income and audited financial statements the Assessing Officer noted that expenses ... appeared that the aforesaid expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business during the relevant previous year, approval was obtained for conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny and notice was issued under Section 143(2) and 2 142(1) of the Act to the Appellant. In response

Shri Paritosh Rungta (Legal Heir of Shr Bharatkumar Rungta), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1138/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in exceeding jurisdiction in the assessment, initiated under limited Scrutiny scope through CASS, which is contrary to the CBDT notification no. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Tab India Granites Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

cannot go beyond the 18 TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LTD. VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 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. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani,CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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 15 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny

Iris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ishraq M. ContractorFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

forming part of the paper book from pages 7-8, the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in respect of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Vide notice dated 11/12/2020 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked

Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Flat No. B-9, D-224, Tanwar Residency, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power