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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1543/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 30/08/2017.

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

28/11/2014. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31/08/2015 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire ... issued on 13/06/2016 and relevant details and documents were called for. The reason for selection of case in limited scrutiny was duly communicated to the AR on when he first appeared on change of incumbent. In compliance of notice, Sh. S. Kumar, Advocate, Authorized Representative for the assessee attended

Surinder Malik, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

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

ITA 6421/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 30/08/2017.

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

Anjali Sudhir Moghe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1808/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1808/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

declaring total income of Rs.9,38,420/-. The said return was processed u/s.143(1) at the returned income. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for examination of capital gains deduction claimed. Statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued requiring the assessee to furnish

Viju Kumar Nair, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

under section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 07.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,39,330/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to identify and examination of credit card payments. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued ... also submitted his written submission as under :- “The case of the Appellant for this year was picked up for ’Limited Scrutiny’ under CASS to examine the cash payments of Rs.17,15,800/- to purchase the Cash Cards. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant was prevented by reasonable

Mr. Atul Hiraji Maru, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)

Section 57

lieu of salary. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the E-assessment scheme on the issue of deductions from income from other sources. While scrutinizing the return of income, the AO noticed that

Mr. Atul Hirji Maru, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2879/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)

Section 57

Vmobi Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai - 4, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 264Section 35A

course of assessment proceedings, the AO vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.08.2018 has intimated the assessee that the case had been selected for limited scrutiny on the issue “share capital/capital". Filling fee of Rs. 22,10,336/- had been shown under "the head operation and OME TAX APPELLATE TROUN

Surada Venkata Krhisna Moorthy, Khammam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Khammam

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

ITA 962/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Surada Venkata Krishna Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Moorthy, Khammam. Ward – 1, Khammam. Pan : Ftnps5589D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri U. Mini Chandran, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2024

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri U. Mini Chandran, Sr.AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

income of Rs.91,210/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response

Harish Kumar Biyani, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1065/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: us. The assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs.76,10,380/- in the e-return filed for AY 2015-16 on 30.09.2015. After the case being selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, assessment order framed on 12.12.20-17 making two additions namely, disallowance of STT and at Rs.2,27,380/- and disallowance of service tax of rs.9800/-. Though the assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) but since the appeal was delayed by 142 days, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s app

For Appellant: Shri Shivansh Tulshyan (on behalf of Sh. Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

declared income of Rs.76,10,380/- in the e-return filed for AY 2015-16 on 30.09.2015. After the case being selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, assessment order framed on 12.12.20-17 making two additions namely, disallowance of STT and at Rs.2,27,380/- and disallowance of service

Alluum Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1042/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 14A

assessee on 05.11.2007 at ‘NIL’ income. It is important to note that the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection under limited scrutiny criteria. Again it needs to be repeated, since this fact would have some bearing on the ultimate outcome of this appeal before us, that

Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin, Plot vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(2), Pratayashkar Bhavan

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

ITA 1059/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1059/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Momin Ward-3(2)(2) V/S. 524A, Opp. Adarsh Hospital Ahmedabad Nr. Telav Shela Cross Road At Telav, Sanand 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Apepm 7307 M अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Pertains To The Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Made By The Assessing Officer As Per His Order Dated 09/12/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 02.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.1,25,210/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee deposited a substantial amount of Rs.2,14,09,917/- in his HDFC Bank account

Pankaj Dhandharia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 741/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisunil Kumar Singh, Jm

Section 142ASection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 50(2)(vi)Section 500Section 56(2)(vii)

This return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act and subsequently picked up for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny. The assessee was asked to submit the details of the properties held by him along with other details pertaining to incomes earned by the assessee during the period

New Life Fellowship Trust, Gurgaon vs. ITO (E), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5295/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarnew Life Fellowship Trust Vs. Ito(Exemption) S-358, Gf Uppal’S South End Faridabad Sohna Road Gurugram – 122018 Pan No. Aaatn 9270 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Faridabad (‘Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 31.03.2019 Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 19.06.2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Concerning A.Y. 2015-16 In Question.

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

notice dated 28.07.2016 issued under section 143(2) of the Act and submitted that the return filed by the assessee was subjected to “limited scrutiny” assessment. The issue identified for scrutiny reads as “transaction of trust with specified person”. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made an addition ... Life Fellowship Trust vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 in this backdrop, contends that in the instant case where the case was selected for limited scrutiny and was not converted into full-fledged scrutiny at the assessment stage, the enhancement power of the CIT(A) are circumscribe

Bhaskar Danve Patil, Jalna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with the directions given above

ITA 285/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Mrs. M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

form other sources. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for limited purpose to examine whether deductions on account of other expenses claimed in the return of income are admissible. Accordingly, statutory

Rinku Arya, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 772/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring a total income of Rs. 5,05,560. It is seen from the records that this case was picked up for limited scrutiny on two issues, namely large cash deposits during demonetisation period and large cash payments made for credit card purchases. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Vipin Kumar Pitliya HUF, Ratlam vs. ITO, Ratlam

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 507/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Vipin Kumar Pitliya Huf, Ito-1, C/O: Rajesh Heeralal Mehta & Ratlam Co., Chartered Accountants, 203, बनाम/ Manas Bhawan Extn., Vs. 11, Rnt Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

507/Ind/2023 – AY 2017-18 5. During hearing before us, Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine “cash deposited during demonetization period”. Then, Ld. AR drew our attention to the bank- statement of assessee filed at Page No. 14 of Paper ... specified bank notes. Thus, the assessee had explainable source of making deposits in bank a/c during demonetization period which was the precise issue of limited scrutiny. But the AO has made addition qua the loans taken by assessee in earlier part of financial year which was not an issue

Husain Kohawala, Kukshi Distt. Dhar vs. Commissioner of Appeal, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee filed its return of income on 14.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,37,880/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of cash deposited during the year. The Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

Sunayana Investment Company Ltd, Indore vs. PCIT-1, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunayana Investment Company Pcit-1, Ltd, Indore Part-B Of 417 Chetak Centre Annex, Vs. R.N.T. Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaucs5765M Assessee By Shri Sohit Gupta & Ms. Alifiya Ali, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

other hand Ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that in the original scrutiny assessment the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny on the issue of expenditure incurred on earning exempt income. In the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act the A.O reopened the case and initiated ... record. Though at the time of original scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny on the issue of allowability of the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income however, the assessee produced the audited finance statements, bank account statements

Cher Medical Technology, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated hereinabove

ITA 18/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

sale of medical equipments and is one of the selling agent of Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After taking electronically uploaded response

Sharadchandrika Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1767/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shubham RathiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

Rs.54,88,523/- u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. 2 Statutory notice u/s.143(2)/142(1) were issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to file the requisite details. In response