{"id":55401,"date":"2025-07-15T11:01:50","date_gmt":"2025-07-15T05:31:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/rahul-bajpai-v-dcit-2025-211-itd-580-raipur-trib-2\/"},"modified":"2025-07-15T11:01:50","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T05:31:50","slug":"rahul-bajpai-v-dcit-2025-211-itd-580-raipur-trib-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/rahul-bajpai-v-dcit-2025-211-itd-580-raipur-trib-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Rahul Bajpai v. DCIT (2025) 211 ITD 580 (Raipur) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee had e-filed his return of income declaring certain amount as income.\u00a0 Subsequently, case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of specific issues.\u00a0 During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer held\u00a0 that assessee had purchased certain land for a consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs, whereas, Fair Market Value (FMV) of same was Rs.55.65 lakhs.\u00a0 He fmade an addition of Rs.50.65 lakhs under section 56(2)(vii)(b).\u00a0 On appeal the Tribunal held that\u00a0\u00a0 since case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of specific issues, Assessing Officer could not have ventured into an issue (difference in purchase consideration of property) that did not form basis for taking up case for such scrutiny assessment without getting said limited scrutiny converted into complete scrutiny as per CBDT Circular No.20\/2015 dated 29.12.2015. Addition is deleted. (AY. 2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 143(3): Assessment-limited scrutiny for examination of specific issue-Assessing Officer could not have ventured into a different issue  without getting said limited scrutiny converted into complete scrutiny as per CBDT Circular No.20\/2015 dated 29.12.2015. [S. 56 (2)(viib)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-epz","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55401"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55401\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55402,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55401\/revisions\/55402"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}