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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Paras H Shah, Mumbai vs. Ward-31(3)(5), Mumbai Old Income Tax Officer 25(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4253/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shreyas Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 57

under consideration on dated 31.08.2015 which was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, however, subsequently was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited scrutiny category and therefore statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, who in response had submitted the requisite details from time to time. On examining

Sarbinder Singh Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7591/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalsarbinder Singh Bindra Asst. Cit, 362, 2Nd Floor, Circle-47(1), Naya Katra, Chandni Vs. Delhi. Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaepb2783P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

interest expenditure of Rs.1,13,15,755/- paid to banks on working capital loans, though this issue was not in the scope of limited scrutiny and is against the circulars and instruction of CBDT. “2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... paid to bank which is also excessive".” 3. The first ground of appeal is relation to the completion of assessment outside the scope of limited scrutiny and is against the circulars and instruction of CBDT. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor

Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

declaring income of Rs.6,85.120/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 12.11.2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act under following parameters: “1. Large share premium received during the year [verify applicability of Sec.56(2)(viib)]. 2. Real

Kashish Multitrde Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Cirecle 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkashish Multi Trade Pvt Vs. Dcit, Cc- 4(3) Room No. 420, Kautilya Ltd., Bhavan, Bandra – 401-A, Pearl Arcade, 400051. Opp Pk Jwellers, Jp Road, Andheri – 400058. Pan/Gir No. Aacck7596A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 250

adjudicate the same through present consolidated order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the following reasons: a. Expenses debited to P & L account for earning exempt income as per schedule of BP of ITR is significantly

Neha Khushiramani, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gwalior

Appeal is allowed

ITA 19/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 144

outset that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned assessment dated 01.11.2018 itself wherein case was selected for “limited scrutiny” to examine “cash deposit during demonetization period” whereas relevant previous year before us is financial year 2015-16 i.e. assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Soudamini Investments Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 1453/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 2nd Appeal was e-filed

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

issued was without jurisdiction. 2. For that the addition made is liable to be deleted since the same was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny and no approval was taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax before making any such addition.” 3. Before us, the Ld. DR read

Mhatre Palace Chsl, Borivali West vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6394/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito – 42(1)(3) Mhatre Palace Chsl Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc 106 Mhatre Palace Chs Ltd Bandra E – 400 051. Ic Colony, Link Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaaam9414D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction amounting to Rs.5,70,79,573 under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on the issue of deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act, and statutory notices under section

Ratnesh Kumar Jain, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Ashok Nagar, Gwalior

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

ITA 278/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250

impugned assessment year originally on 01.04.2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,73,340/-. Case of the assessee was , originally selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was originally completed u/s. 143(3) on 15.12.2016, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.7,54,500/-. Thereafter ... assessee filed return of income originally on 01.04.2015, which was scrutinized by AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act under CASS for framing limited scrutiny assessment, wherein assessment order dated 15.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer and the income was assessed at Rs.7,54,500/- against the returned income

Shri Ramachandra Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Kumta, Kumta vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Karwar, Karwar

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

ITA 266/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.264,265 & 266/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21,218-19 & 2017-18) Ito, Nfac, Shri Ramachandra Pattina Vs Newdelhi-110001. Sahakari Sangha Niyamita . . Kumta, Nellikeri Kumta, Uttara Karnataka-581343, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aakas0800R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Parmeshwar Bhat.Ar Revenue By Smt.Deepali Kalbandhe.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2025 Order Per Bench: The Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/ 250 Of The Act. 2. Since Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Up Ita No.265/Pan/2024, A.Y 2018-19 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated. The Assesse Has Raised The 2 Ita. No. 264,265&266/Pan/2024 Shri Ramachandra Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitkumta. Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Denial Of Claim Under Section 80P Of The Act.

Section 80P

disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil/- after claiming deduction u/sec 80Pof the Act of Rs.31,86,727/-.Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return

Shri Ramachandra Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Kumta, Kumta vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre Delhi

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

ITA 265/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Section 80P

Shri Ramachandra Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Kumta, Kumta vs. Assessing Officer NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 264/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Section 80P

Amar Shoe and Leather Wears, Agra vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

Appeal is allowed in very terms

ITA 93/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)

hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2017 itself once it was an instance of “limited scrutiny” on various issues whereas only the assessee’s expenditure stood disallowed by learned lower authorities. The Revenue fails to dispute this expenditure disallowance nowhere ... formed subject matter of “limited scrutiny”. 4. That being the clinching fact, we quote PCIT v/s Weilburger Coatings (P) Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 580(Cal) to quash the impugned assessment for this precise reason. 5. All other pleadings stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in very

Aashirbad Enterprises, Forbesganj vs. Income Tax Officer, Purnea

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

ITA 714/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment proceedings of Shri Samir Bhowmik, the partner of the Firm M/s. Ashirwad Enterprises, which was selected for Limited Scrutiny for AY 2017-18, it was clarified by him that due to wrong tagging of PAN by the bank, his name was appearing while depositing the cash but in fact

Late Ratan Dev Rao, West Champaran vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Bettiah

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

ITA 682/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 681/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 & I.T.A. No. 682/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Late Ratan Dev Rao,…………………....…...…Appellant Through Legal Heir- Smt. Renuka Devi, Ratwal,Patilar, Chautarwa, West Champaran-845101, Bihar [Pan:Agrpr1178D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-1(5), Bettiah, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: February 13, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Rs.4,88,650/- (for A.Y. 2017-18) were e-filed on 29.03.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify the cash in hand. Notices under section 143(2) were issued and served on the assessee requesting compliance. However, the assessee remained non-complaint. Notices under section

Late Ratan Dev Rao, West Champaran vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Bettiah

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

ITA 681/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Alladi Krishna Prasad, Mandalaparru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

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

ITA 172/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.172/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Alladi Krishna Prasad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Aayakar Bhawan D.No. 3-73, Mandalaparru D.No. 2-1-56/1 Nidamarru Mandal Opp. Punjab National Bank West Godavari – 534198 K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcjpa7058L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer even though the assessment was converted into limited scrutiny in order to verify the deposits made under Operation Clean Money, the Assessing Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction by bringing entire cash and credit ... deposits in the bank account along with the deposits made during the demonetization period without converting such limited scrutiny into a large scrutiny. Hence the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in non consideration of the additional legal ground made in ground No.7 ie., "The Learned Assessing Officer

Malabar Educational and Charitable Trust, Palakkad vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thrissur

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

ITA 48/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by directing the AO to restrict the addition to the extent as specified under the limited scrutiny as per SOP. Accordingly, the CIT(A) set aside the issue back to the file of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee ... file of the AO to the limit additions in respect of the 3 ITA No.48/Coch/2025. Malabar Educational and Charitable Trust. items for which limited scrutiny was taken up, all the other grounds of appeal raised before this Tribunal had become infructuous. 5. In the result, the appeal filed

Mukesh Kumar, Sonipat vs. ITO, Sonipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

assessee, an individual, filed his Income Tax Return on 26.03.2019 declaring income of Rs. 78,08,620/- case whereof was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reasons “The assessee has shown nil ALV despite having shown more than one house property in Schedule-HP of ITR”. Notices were

Yogendra Kumar Gupta, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gwl, Gwalior

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

ITA 176/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50

declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Return was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1). Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS on the reasons “capital gains/loss on sale of property”. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices ... declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessee is an individual. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny under CASS on the reason “capital gains/loss on sale of property”. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer

Kundan Singh Thakur, Raipur vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (Erstwhile ITO-4(5), Raipur

ITA 477/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 477/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

erred in confirming the additions made by AO without appreciating the fact that the issue relating to additions are not covered by scope of 'limited scrutiny'. The assessment order & addition made are illegal & without jurisdiction. 6. The assessment proceedings and the assessment order passed by AO is illegal, ab initio ... agricultural income of Rs.1,80,000/- for the year under consideration i.e., AY 2015-16. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny on the reason- “Substantial increase in capital in a year”. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) dated 29.07.2016 and notice u/s 142(1) along with query