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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Vijay Yeshwant Pangam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(3)(7), Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 4653/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4653/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vijay Yeshwant Pangam Vs. Ito, Ward 34(3)(7) 25-C, B-Wing, Flat No. 304, Kautilya Bhavan Rmms Sector C-41 To C-43 Gokul Dham, Goregaon-E G-Block, Bkc Maharashtra-400 063. Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Apepp6032J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 69A

case shows that assessee filed its return of income on 14/6/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 821,210/–. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify large cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessee is a salaried individual. The assessee deposited in his greater Bombay cooperative bank

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Nahan vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Nahan

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

ITA 187/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 187/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, बनाम Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour Nahan, Sirmour. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

justice. 8. That learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned A.O. in converting the limited scrutiny case to Complete Scrutiny without prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend ... outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee requested the Bench to allow him to withdraw Ground N o. 8 of the appeal, i.e., regarding Limited Scrutiny case converting in to a Complete Scrutiny. The Bench allowed him to withdraw the same and as such the appeal on this Ground

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

building. The assessee filed his return of income on 09.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.5,02,890/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for clarification on the issue of investment in immovable property and capital gains/income on sale of the property. The statement of facts

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Even for AY 2012-13, though the case of M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd., was selected for the limited scrutiny for examining the unaccounted income of Rs.20,00,000/-and for this purpose all the details of M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd. including audited balance sheet and details of share

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Irla Co-Op Hsg Soceity Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4269/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Irla Co-Op Hsg Society Vs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(5) Limited, 191/A, Prime Maharashtra – 400054 Mall Irla, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai4878F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pramod Parida Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Disallowance U/S 43B- 61,01,040/- I) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Statutory Liabilities Without Appreciating That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) & Further Erred In Holding That The Appellant, A Co-Op Housing Society (Chs), Is Doing Business Activity, Therefore, As Sec 438 Is Not Applicable On The Face It Being Eligible For The Benefit U/S 80P, The Disallowance Of Rs.61.01.040/- Is Uncalled For & The Same May Be Deleted Ii) Without Prejudice To Above, The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Concept Of Mutuality Does Not Apply To The Appellant Where There Is Close Nexus Of All Its Funds Flow Are Utilized Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members, Hence The Disallowance Made May Be Deleted As Consistency Needs To Be Respected. 2. Taxability U/S. 22 Or U/S. 56- Rental Or Hire Charges Rs.8,73,634/-

For Appellant: Pramod ParidaFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 43BSection 56Section 80P

cooperative housing society and return of income declaring total income of Rs.9,19,650/- was filed on 22.10.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.07.2017. During the course of assessment the assessing officer on perusal of the submission

Kautilya Shares and Stocks Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3884/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)

book profit assessable u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. It is relevant to observe from the assessment record that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of income from heads of income other than business/profession mismatch, sales turn over mismatch and investment in unlisted equities ... accepting the return of income after considering the submissions of the assessee. It is important to note that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer preferred to issue notice u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that profit on sale of agricultural land

Jayant Kumar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 263Section 56(1)

aspects were considered by the assessing officer.” 3. Pertinent points for adjudication of the appeal are that, the case has been selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.66,851/- on account of interest received on the amounts in the bank account

Nagarama Manohar Tenneti, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nagarama Manohar Tenneti Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4/1/12 Ward-2 Dwaraka Nagar Vizianagaram Baha Metta, Vizianagaram [Pan : Afbpt7442P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

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

return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.07.2017, admitting total income of Rs.12,81,460/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through “CASS” to verify “Cash deposit during demonetisation period”. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

Srk Dev Build Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

Build Pvt. Ltd assessee cannot impugn penalty imposed by AO qua those very disallowances? (iii) The case of preceding AY 2015-16 was under “limited scrutiny” whereas the case of present AY 2016-17 was under “complete scrutiny”. Therefore, there is no parity in two assessments and the assessee cannot ... because assessment-proceedings and penalty-proceedings are two separate and independent proceedings. (iii) Although the assessment of preceding AY 2015-16 was selected for “limited scrutiny” but all details of income, heads of income, etc. which are basic details in assessment of any assessee, were very much available before

M/S Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust, 143, Gomez Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 329/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 12ASection 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Officer . 4. On 19.08.2016, the assessee filed Return of income declaring the total income as ‘Nil’, but, case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Thereupon, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 26.07.2016. On completion of proceedings

M/S Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption) Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 328/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 12ASection 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Shrawasti vs. ITO, WD 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 306/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal (Self)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

assessee e-filed his return of income on 08.11.2017 vide acknowledgement No.298179120081117 declaring total income of Rs.3,05,700/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the assessment year under consideration through CASS on the reason of "Cash Withdrawals" and notices ... above the assessee has noted PAN AERPJ4342P, which is related to his address of Shrawasti District in Uttar Pradesh. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on reason Cash withdrawals and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 had been issued without

Neelam Sachin Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 768/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2

claimed to have derived tuition income and income from pre-schooling consulting. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue under CASS under limited scrutiny, and accordingly statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has filed

Neelam Sachin Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 767/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2

Income Tax Officer-22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Ahuja Tower Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 859/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha

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

R Ramesh & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed

ITA 107/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Suchak Ancheliya CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

appellate order. In the assessee’s written submission, the learned CIT – A noted that assessee is an employee, and the case was selected for limited scrutiny. He discussed that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account. 6. The learned CIT – A in paragraph number 5 recorded that several

R Ramesh & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed

ITA 106/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Suchak Ancheliya CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Abha Agarwal, Moradabad vs. ACIT, Circle-II, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

assessee is an individual and filed return of Income on 25.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,24,92,580/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 13.12.2018, assessing total income at Rs. 1,67,86,180/-. Addition to the tune of Rs.42

Gautam Harmanbhai Solanki, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 09.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 3,49,900/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason that “cash deposit during the year”. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.08.2018 was issued