Selection of cases for scrutiny

Cases when selection of cases for scrutiny during the Financial Year 

Selection of Cases for Scrutiny (Income Tax India)

Scrutiny refers to a detailed examination of a return of income by the Income Tax Department to verify the correctness of income declared, deductions claimed, exemptions, losses, and tax computation. The scrutiny section is covered under the legal framework like Section 143(2)—Issue of notice for scrutiny, Section 143(3)—Completion of scrutiny assessment, Section 144B—Faceless assessment (with exceptions), and CBDT Instructions/SOPs—Annual guidelines for selection & scope. Following are types of scrutiny:

• Limited Scrutiny : Restricted to specific issues mentioned in the notice; expansion to complete scrutiny only with approval & reasons. Example: mismatch in capital gains, cash deposits, interest income
• Complete Scrutiny : All aspects of the return can be examined. Generally applies to compulsory or serious risk cases

Cases are selected through automated, risk-based parameters using data analytics.

Key triggers include mismatches between ITR and Form 26AS/AIS/TIS, High-value transactions (property, shares, cash deposits), abnormal increases/decreases in income or expenses, large refunds claimed, discrepancies in capital gains, losses, or deductions, and non-reporting or under-reporting of income.

Compulsory Scrutiny : Mandatorily selected irrespective of risk score, such as search & seizure cases (Section 132), requisition cases (Section 132A), cases involving serious tax evasion, information from law enforcement agencies (ED, CBI, SFIO), international transactions/transfer pricing, and cases where prosecution is contemplated.

Selected by authorities with recorded reasons and prior approval, usually where:

• Credible tax evasion information exists

• Inputs from audit, investigation wing, or intelligence units

• Scrutiny selection does not mean wrongdoing. Proper documentation and reconciliation are crucial, Responses must be issue-specific, factual, and timely. AIS/TIS reconciliation is now critical in scrutiny cases.

• The scrutiny selection process is increasingly data-driven, faceless, and risk-based, aimed at curbing evasion while minimizing harassment of compliant taxpayers.

In supersession of earlier Instructions on the above subject, the Board hereby lays down the following procedure and criteria for manual selection of returns/cases for scrutiny during the financial-year

a) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is either confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority.

b) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year on the issue of transfer pricing in excess of Rs. 10 crore or more on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is either confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority.

c) All assessments pertaining to Survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) excluding those cases where books of accounts, documents etc.

were not impounded and returned income (excluding any disclosure made during the Survey) is not less than returned income of preceding assessment year.

However, where assessee retracts the disclosure made during the Survey, such cases will not be covered by this exclusion.

d) Assessments in search and seizure cases to be made under section(s) 158B, 158BC, 158BD, 153A & 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act and also for the returns filed for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which authorization for search and seizure was executed u/s 132 or 132A of the Act.

e) Returns filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act.

f) Cases where registration u/s 12M of the IT Act has not been granted or has been cancelled by the CIT/DIT concerned, yet the assessee has been found to be claiming tax-exemption under section 11 of the Act.

However, where such orders of the CIT/DIT have been reversed/set-aside in appellate proceedings, those cases will not be selected under this clause.

g) Cases where the approval already granted u/s 1O(23C)/35(1)(ii)/35(1)(iii)/10(46) of the Act has been withdrawn by the Competent Authority, yet the assessee has been found claiming tax-exemption/benefit under the aforesaid provisions.

h) Cases in respect of which specific and verifiable information pointing out tax-evasion is given by Government Departments/Authorities.

The Assessing Officer shall record reasons and take prior approval from jurisdictional Pro CCIT/CCIT/Pr. DGIT/DGIT concerned before selecting such a case for scrutiny.

Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS): Cases are also being selected under CASS on the basis of broad based selection filters.

List of such cases shall be separately intimated in due course by the Pr. DGIT(Systems) to the jurisdictional authorities concerned.

It is reiterated that the targets for completion of scrutiny assessments and strategy of framing quality assessments as contained in Central Action Plan document for Financial-Year 2015-2016 have to be complied with and it must be ensured that all scrutiny assessment orders including the cases selected under the manual criterion are completed through the AST system software only.

Further, in order to ensure the quality of assessments being framed, Pro CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr. DsGIT/DsGIT should evolve a suitable monitoring mechanism and by 30th April, 2016, such authorities shall send a report to the respective Zonal Member with a copy to Member (IT) containing details of at least 50 quality assessment orders from their respective charges.

In this regard, IT Authorities concerned must ensure that cases selected for publication in ‘Let us Share’ are picked up only from the quality assessments as reported.

Income Tax Dept. conducted search & seizure operations on 4 Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs). (On December 8, 2021)

Delhi High Court directs release of jewellery and cash seized during an income tax search on deposit of advance tax

• The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to release jewelry and cash seized from a family’s residence during a search operation, after the petitioners agreed to deposit advance tax towards their probable tax liability arising from the search.
• A Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar passed the order while disposing of writ petitions filed by members of the Rastogi family. During the search conducted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, jewelry valued at approximately INR 5.95 crore and cash/foreign currency amounting to about INR 40 lakh had been seized on the allegation that the same represented undisclosed income.
• The petitioners contended that all seized assets were explained or explainable and further submitted that a family wedding was scheduled, for which the jewelry was urgently required.
• During the course of the hearing, the petitioners, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, expressed their willingness to deposit ₹2.5 crore as advance tax to safeguard the interests of the Revenue.
• Taking note of the facts and the undertaking given by the petitioners, the High Court directed the release of the seized jewelry and cash, subject to compliance with the advance tax deposit.

Key Takeaway of Delhi High Court

The ruling of Delhi High Court reiterates that seizure during search proceedings is not punitive, and where taxpayers offer reasonable security, such as advance tax payment, the courts may direct release of seized assets, particularly when personal exigencies and prima facie explanations exist.  Case Details are mention here under

• Case Title: Koshaliya Devi Rastogi & Ors. v. Income Tax Department

• Case No.: W.P.(C) 7448/2025 along with CM Appl. 41160/2025

• Court: Delhi High Court

For query or help, contact: singh@carajput.com or call at 9555555480

Read our articles:

• How to file a return of TDS online
• New TDS deduction No cash transactions exceeding 1 Crore -Section 194N
• Extention of TDS/TCS statement filing Date