Assessee’s case selected for scrutiny assessment. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) and passed order u/s 143(3) whereby he rejected et-off and carry forward of loss and made additions in income of assessee. On appeal to the Tribunal, it was held that the limited scrutiny for which the assessment was ordered to be scrutinized did not include the matter that the Assessing Officer decided. On appeal, the Calcutta High Court observed that the CBDT has noted instances where some of the Assessing Officer were travelling beyond the issues while making assessment in limited scrutiny cases by initiating inquiries on new issue without complying with mandatory requirements of the relevant CBDT Instruction dated 26-9-2014, 29-12-2015 and 14-7-2016. Further, it was reiterated that the Assessing Officer should abide by the Instructions of CBDT while completing limited scrutiny assessment and should be scrupulous about maintenance of note sheets in assessment folders. The order of the tribunal upheld. (AY. 2015-16)
PCIT v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd (2023) 155 taxmann.com 580 /(2024) 296 Taxman 205 (Cal)(HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Limited scrutiny-Issue decided by AO with respect to carry forward of losses was not part of limited scrutiny for which assessment was directed to be scrutinised, since AO did not abide by Instruction No. 5/2016, dated 14-07-2016 and exceeded his jurisdiction, disallowance made with respect to carry forward of losses was to be deleted.[S. 72, 260A]