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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

ITO Ward-7(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Karan Jayeshkumar Shah, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 592/AHD/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalibhadra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 68Section 69

income for assessment year 2016-17 on 31-03-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,60,980/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposit during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee was maintaining bank account with ‘The Ahmedabad Mercantile

Nilesh Raghavji Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off and partly

ITA 819/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 274

filed return of income on 16.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 7,19,770/- for A.Y. 2016-17. The case was selected for the limited scrutiny and the notice u/s. 143(2) 142(1) were issued calling about the details from the assessee. The details were filed and examined

Babli, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 4525/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Year : 2015-16 Babli, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), H.No. 119-R, Ff, Bombay Faridabad Juice Corner, Agra Chowk, Haryana - 121002 Palwal, Faridabad Haryana – 121102 (Pan: Aqxpb1264A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca & Mohit Chaudhary, Ca & Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Respondent By : S/Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. Dr & Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2024

For Appellant: S/Shri Harish Chaudhary, CA &For Respondent: S/Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. DR & Vivek

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessment year 2015-16 on 7.9.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 11,70,220/-. The said return was selected under scrutiny through CASS for limited scrutiny by the AO and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 20.9.2016 was issued for 19.10.2016 and notice u/s. 142(1) dated

Mohammed Mazharuddin Mohd Raizuddin Mohd Raizuddin, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(7), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 784/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.784/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 19.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,93,150/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. The assessee was called upon to file certain information by issuing notice(s) u/s.143(2)/ u/s.142(1). In response to the notices

Mrs. Raniammal Subramaniam, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 10(5), Chennai

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

ITA 91/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 69

income for the assessment year 2017-18 electronically on 31.07.2017 admitting total income of Rs.14,80,350/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on account of cash deposits made during demonetization period. During the scrutiny proceedings, details like bank accounts, sources of cash deposits

Shri. Narayana Muralidhar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 727/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

sources being income from house property, business income and long term capital gains. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. One of the reason for selection of scrutiny was substantial cash deposits in bank accounts during the year. During the course of assessment proceeding, as the assessee

Modella Caretaker Centre, Siliguri vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 466/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(e)

issued upon the assessee. Subsequently, the ld. AO after obtaining the necessary approval from ld. Pr. CIT had converted the case of assessee from limited scrutiny to 2 AY: 2015-16 Modella Care Taker Centre complete scrutiny and issued notice u/s 143(1) of the Act. The ld. AO while

Tarai Transport Corporation, Siliguri vs. JCIT, Range-1, Siliguri

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

ITA 273/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

return of income for AY 2016-17 on 05.01.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 26,71,360/-. This case was picked up for limited scrutiny and subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2018 on a total income of Rs. 30,79,360/-. 2.1. During ... while taking the view that the Revenue leakage in the instant case cannot be determined as the assessment was made under the purview of 'Limited Scrutiny" where in fact, both the Ld. A.O., making the assessment order and the Ld. JC1 I. making the penalty order had the scope

Aurelia Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1138/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 36Section 57

assessee is a co-operative society and declared Nil income for Assessment Year 2017-18 in the return filed on 30/01/2018. Case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason that “large deduction claimed under section 57 (Deduction against income from Other Sources”. After serving the valid notice

M/S. Data Patterns (India) Ltd, Chennai vs. AO, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M.K Rangasamy, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(via)Section 43B

Rs.1,95,30,970/- and disallowances u/s 36(1)(via) Rs. 31,19,929/- . The assessment was picked up for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act without making any addition. 3. The assesse before Ld. CIT(A) has submitted that the assessee has already

Mukhundhan Gopalan, Trichy vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 504/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mukhundhan Gopalan, The Asst. Commissioner Of B-901, Trichy Rich 104, Vs. Income Tax, Salai Road, Woraiyur Bazaar, Circle 1(1), Trichy – 620 003. Trichy. Pan: Aagpm 1974P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1 In Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1050429409 (1) Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.10.2020. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By The Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Completed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 19.10.2020 Without Making Enquiry In Regard To Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income U/S.14A R.W.Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Assessee Has Raised Many Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

vide order dated 19.10.2020 for the relevant assessment year 2018-19 accepting the returned income. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny i.e., limited scrutiny to verify and assess on the following, (i) High income reported in the return and no entry in Schedule Assets and Liabilities of return

Gumption Labs Finserve Private Limited, Kota vs. ITO Ward -2(2), Kota

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

ITA 417/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

That the ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing the ground ‘’that the AO grossly erred in law and facts on conversion from Limited Scrutiny to Full Scrutiny in the end informing on 10-12-2018 as case was going time barred on 31-12-2018 and informing different dates ... KOTA 2.2 At the very outset of the case, the Bench noticed that the case of the assessee was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny on the issue of Large Sales Promotion Expenses claimed in the P&L account. In this regard, the ld. AR of the assessee that

Indapur Taluka Prathmik Shikshakanchi Sahakari Patasnatha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Taxofficer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

return was processed on 27.01.2019 u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued calling for various details. 4. During the course

Aashna Prakash Rochlani, Khar West vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Lal Baug, Parel

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

ITA 867/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleaashna Prakash Rochlani V. Ito-Ward 22(1)(1) 501, Turning Point 501 Piramal Chamber Turning Point, 1 & Amp Lal Baug, Parel 16 Khar Danda Road, Khar(W) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400052, Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan: Abbpg3558K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri S.D. Chheda Department Represented By : Shri Harmesh Lal

Section 54ESection 54F

appeal.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the, assessee filed return of income on 29.07.2016. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Catholic Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

income, for the year under consideration, on 31/10/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine large payment of salary, rent, interest and other expenses made to specified persons u/s 13(3) of the Act. During the assessment

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

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

ITA 2768/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment without complying with the mandatory CBDT Instructions/Guidelines in relation to cases selected under limited scrutiny. Ld. Counsel submits that this ground is a legal ground going to the root of the matter i.e. the very validity of assessment and, therefore ... impugned assessment as invalid as the said assessment was completed without complying with the mandatory CBDT Instructions/Guidelines in relation to cases selected under limited scrutiny. Ground which was raised challenging the very validity of the assessment the same is admitted placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

basis of perusal of the assessment record, made the following observation vide para 2 of his order:- “The above case was selected under limited scrutiny to examine whether the funds received in the form of shares premium are from disclosed sources and have been correctly offered for tax. The assessee

Shri Hariom Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 680/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.679 & 680/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Shanshank Deogadkar

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

assessment year 2018-19 was filed on 30.10.2018 declaring Nil after claiming deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under E-assessment Scheme, 2019. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny for verification of substantial deductions claimed under Chapter VIA. Statutory notices

Shri Hariom Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 679/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.679 & 680/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Shanshank Deogadkar

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

Krishna Kumar Jalan, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev S. Verma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

material placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee had committed errors while filing the return. However, when the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny as per CASS, the assessee filed the revised computation for income bringing forth the errors inadvertently committed by him. Article 265 of the Constitution