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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata vs. Prakash Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 293/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 250Section 69C

appellant during appellate proceedings in support of its contention. From the perusal of assessment order it is seen that case was taken up under limited scrutiny vide CASS on the issue of ‘‘Large cash payment made for credit card purchases”. During the assessment proceedings AO issued notices and sought explanation

New Kable Point, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 268/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.C.Krishnakumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR

Section 36Section 40

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income and thereafter its case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee had not deducted TDS and paid to the department and also the AO based on the Profit & Loss

Munni Devi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

ITA 678/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 54B

which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny under section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and notice under section 143(2) was issued on dated 18.09.2015 which was duly served upon the assessee

Kuldeep Singh, Sas Nagar, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Chandigarh

ITA 362/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

deduction under chapter VI-A which was processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. the case was selected for scrutiny through limited scrutiny having reasons “Large Agricultural Income”. 3. Statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act alongwith the reason was issued on 13/08/2018 and served

Shekhar Sanjay Jadhav, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical Purpose

ITA 1645/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1645/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shekhar Sanjay Jadhav, Vs The Income Tax Officer, At Post Wadhe, Tal-Satara, Satara. Dist-Satara – 415011. Pan: Annpj5563F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri B S Rajpurohit – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017- 18, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 03.06.2024. Brief Facts Of The Case : 2. In This Case, As It Appears From The Assessment Order That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income(Roi) Electronically For Shekhar Sanjay Jadhav [A]

For Appellant: 3. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. However

Section 143(2)Section 250

declaring total income of Rs.3,56,940/-. In the assessment order, it is mentioned by the AO that Assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of “large cash deposit”. AO had issued notices electronically on 08.08.2018, 16.09.2019, 14.10.2019 and 05.12.2019. The notice dated

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Raj Clearing Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1489/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Acit – 24(1), Raj Clearing Agency, Vs. Room.No.601, 6Th Floor, 303/D Wing, Piramal Chambers, Jayant Apartment, Lalbaug, Parel, Sahar Cargocomplex, Mumbai – 400012. Andheri(East), Mumbai-40099. Pan/Gir No. Aaifr0443E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40A(2)(b)

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “Large other expenses claimed in the profit & Loss account, receipts u/s 194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR, tax credit

Satyendra Kumar Vyas, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 284/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') at the same income. Thereafter, case was selected Page 4 of 8 for 'Limited Scrutiny through 'CASS" on the reasons of cash deposits during the year and cash deposits during the demonetization period and accordingly notice

M/S Rana & Joshi Buildtech P Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

return of income for the year under consideration on 29.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.60,04,220/-. The case of assesse was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) as well as u/s 142(1). The case was subsequently converted to complete scrutiny ... next contention of the Ld. AR of the assesse is that the AO has sought the approval of conversion of case from Limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny vide letter dated 08.11.2017 and informed to the assessee vide letter dated 23.11.2017. Therefore, the AO was having no time to take

Sohan Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO 7(2), ITO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed

ITA 995/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

income of Rs. 1,30,797/-,from other sources. The income tax return so filed was subjected to limited scrutiny for the verification and examination of the issue of “Cash Deposits during the demonetization period”. On said aspect of the matter, ld. AO noted that the assessee had filed

Dhirain Mahesh Sadhwani, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 772/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

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

Rs.6,25,360/- as presumptive income from business and profession with gross receipts of Rs.12,14,100/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on the issue of “cash withdrawal”. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had made frequent cash deposits

Hansaben Mahendrakumar Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 295/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Hansaben Mahendrakumar The Principal Mehta, बनामVs Commissioner Of . 4, Hatkesh Society, Income Tax-1, St. Xavier’S School Road, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaxpm0576G

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

order u/s.263 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the capital gain deduction claimed by the assessee in her ITR. Thus, the inquiry made by the Assessing Officer has been done thoroughly

Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

nexus between the borrowed funds and the income earned was claimed to be directly established. 2.2. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny. The scrutiny was limited to the issue of "deduction from income from other sources." During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under Section ... investment (Rs. 34,54,952/-) should have been disallowed under Section 14A. The PCIT held that the AO failed to expand the scope of limited scrutiny to address this issue, which rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3.2. The PCIT rejected the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar. vs. Goreshwar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Parner, Goregaon, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Payal RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

declaring total income at Nil after claiming Chapter VIA deduction to the tune of Rs.60,52,342/- The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons – investments/advances/ loans. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) were issued seeking details related

Skoda Auto Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad vs. The ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

ITA 1323/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

case of the assessee vide notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was subjected to limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the deduction claimed u/c VI-A of the Act. In the event of non-compliance with notices issued u/s 143(2) and subsequently u/s 142(1), the assessee

Venkata Ramana Voonna, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.251/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Ramana Voonna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Abipv2254N Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

income was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bangaluru on 29/05/2018. Later the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the ‘cash deposits during demonetization period’. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA on 10/08/2018

ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur, Siddhnath Bhawan Lal Kothi vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Jaipur

12. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed as deemed to have been withdrawn due to low tax effect

ITA 862/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Aneeta Rinesh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

heard. File perused. 5. In brief, the facts as available from the assessment order are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny (CASS), whereupon notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued; said notice was followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, accompanied

Shree Ganesh Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2424/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed

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

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 28.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 30,27,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee’s authorised representative, CA filed

Income-Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Sanjivani Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Gurudwara Road, Kopargaon Dist. Ahmednagar. Pin-423601, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1280/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1280/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

filed on 09.03.2019 2 declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80P at Rs.2,31,65,374/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny for verification of (i) Investments/Advances/Loans, (ii) Unsecured Loans and (iii) Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A. Notice u/s.142(1) along with questionnaire

Friends Timber Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

grossly erred in making and the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming the additions made during assessment which were outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny. The additions made during assessment being outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny as prescribed, deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice ... grossly erred in making and the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming the additions made during assessment which were outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny. The additions made during assessment being outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny as prescribed, deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice

Dinesh Naran Patel-HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta KholiyaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring total income of INR 2,43,970/- on 15/10/2016. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large value of cash deposit made during demonetizing period. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that cash deposited aggregating