Tribunal held that  the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had verified both the issues and was satisfied about the investment in property and also about the deduction claimed under section 54B. No addition on account of both the issues were made. However, by disallowing the fair market value claimed under section 45, the Assessing Officer exceeded the jurisdiction assigned to him under the limited scrutiny assessment and had violated the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction Nos. 5 of 2016, dated July 14, 2016 and 20 of 2015, dated December 29, 2015. Section 54B could not be linked with section 48 for enhancement of capital gains under section 45 unless the Assessing Officer had taken the prior permission of the Principal Commissioner, which he had failed to do. The assessment orders passed under section 143(3) is  bad in law and the addition made is   deleted.(AY. 2014-15)