ITR scrutiny notice: Income Tax Department looks at these parameters while selecting ITRs for scrutiny
Over the past few years, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has been issuing similar circulars every year that that outline the criteria for the mandatory/ compulsory selection of ITRs for scrutiny. The latest circular was issued for FY 2025-26. These guidelines clarify how the compulsory selection of ITRs for thorough scrutiny works (including the parameters) and detail the procedures that need to be followed in such specified cases.
Check out the info below to learn more about the guidelines for choosing an ITR for scrutiny that came out on June 13, 2025. What should taxpayers note about the latest ITR scrutiny guidelines for FY 2025-26? The guidelines for FY 2025-26 are somewhat similar to the ones issued last year for FY 2024-25 but for this year, there are some new additions.Advocate Bhimanshu Kansal, founder of Kansal Bhimanshu Legal and Practices, says, one of the changes made in the FY 2025-26 guidelines relates to Section 133A that is the survey and search cases.Kansal says: 'One of the parameters for such selection is where a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act (other than survey under Section 133A(2A) has been conducted on or after 01.04.2023. Notably, in prior years, selection of returns towards such parameters was subject to some exclusion/conditions viz. such a survey leads to detection information/materials pointing out tax evasion.'However, there is no such exception carved out in the guidelines for selection of the cases during FY 2025-26. Kansal says: 'This means on a plain reading of guidelines, in the event of the survey happening under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act is sufficient for such selection, irrespective of the fact that this leads to tax evasion or not, which can be a panic situation for fairly surveyed Assessees as well.'Chartered Accountant Ashish Karundia provides a contrarian view about survey related cases: "The absence of a specific reference to information or material indicating tax evasion in survey-related cases may not be significant, as previous scrutiny guidelines issued before FY 2024–25 also did not mandate such a requirement." Karundia explains: "It is to be noted that information obtained during a survey under Section 133A is considered 'information' that may indicate that taxable income has escaped assessment. The tax authorities, therefore, remain empowered to conduct scrutiny under Section 143(2) or initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 based on such information." Accoding to Deepashree Shetty, Associate Partner, BDO in India, the FY 2025-26 guideline also mentions the timelines for assessment proceedings u/s 142(1) of the IT Act for ITRs filed for FY 2023-24. These are: Issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act (intimation of selection of ITR for scrutiny): June 30, 2025
Time limit for completion of scrutiny by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC): March 31, 2026 Since June 30, 2025, many scrutiny notices have already been issued and this is a routine exercise according to the newly released guidelines.Chartered Accountant Jigar Suba, says: 'While the circular (compulsory scrutiny selection) itself may seem routine, there is a significant risk that many scrutiny cases may go unnoticed by both clients and professionals. There are few key areas of concern as below including but not limited to cases flagged on the basis of: Search or survey actions (past or recent)- Compulsory scrutiny.
Trusts/ Institutions/ receiving donations u/s 80G whose registrations are being cancelled or not approved (up to March 31, 2024) and claiming deduction/ exemption- Compulsory Scrutiny.
Information received through SFT, TDS, Investigation wing, or enforcement agencies, or
Additions in previous years on a recurring issue of law and/or fact amounting to exceeding Rs 50 lakh in metro cities and Rs 20 lakh in other cities. Metro cities for this purpose means Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune.' Also read: You can know what final income tax scrutiny order contains even before it is issued
What happens after an ITR is selected for scrutiny? Shetty from BDO in India says: 'Once the ITR is selected for scrutiny, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) shall issue a notice calling for additional details or information to enable them to complete the scrutiny. The taxpayer must provide the required information through the online tax compliance portal as per the timelines stipulated by the Assessing Officer.' What are the guidelines for selecting an ITR for scrutiny for FY 2025-26? On June 13, 2025, the CBDT has issued guidelines outlining the processes for the mandatory selection of income tax returns that will undergo thorough scrutiny in the Financial Year (FY) 2025-26. Shetty says, 'The guidelines are issued in their latest circular. These parameters relate to cases pertaining to search and seizure, survey, cases where the tax department has information regarding tax evasion.'Here's a table showing some of the guidelines: SystemsScenario
code Parameters CS 01 Cases pertaining to survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 (Act)- Case(s) of the assessee(s), in whose case survey u/s 133A of the Act (other than survey u/s 133A(2A) of the Act) has been conducted on or after 01.04.2023 CS02 Cases pertaining to Search & seizure/ requisition on or after 01.04.2023 but before 01.09.2024:Case(s) of the assessee, in whose case Search u/s 132 of the Act was initiated or Requisition u/s 132A of the Act was made, on or after 01.04.2023 but before 01.09.2024. CS03 Search & seizure/ requisition on or after 0 1.09.2024 but before 01.04 .2025Case(s) for the Assessment Year 2025-26, in whose case Search (For u/s 132 of the Act was initiated or Assessing Officers in Requisition u/s 132A of the Act was made, on or after 01.09.2024 but before 01.04.2025. CS 05 Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year(s) on a recurring issue of law or fact and/or law and fact: Where the addition m an earlier assessment year( s) on a recurring issue of law or fact and/or law and fact (including transfer pricing issue) is: a. exceeding Rs. 50 lakh m eight metro charges at Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune;b. exceeding Rs. 20 lakh in charges other than eight metro charges; and where such an addition(i) has become final, as no further appeal has been preferred against the assessment order; or(ii) has been upheld by the Appellate Authorities in favour of Revenue; even if further appeal of assessee is pending, against such order. CS0 6 Cases related to specific information regarding tax-evasion: Cases, in respect of which: (a) specific information pointing out tax-evasion for the relevant assessment year is provided by any law-enforcement agency, (Investigation Wing/ Intelligence/ Regulatory Authority/ Agency, etc.) ; and (b) the return for the relevant assessment year is furnished by the assessee. Source: CBDT circular dated June 13, 2025
Also read: Documents for ITR filing FY 2024-25 (AY 2025-26): Eight documents you need to file income tax return What did the tax department say about Section 142 (1) tax notices?
Tax notices under Section 142(1) are sent when you have been asked to file your ITR, but haven't done so. The tax department mas made it clear that these specific Section 142(1) cases will be handled using the computer-assisted scrutiny selection (CASS), rather than being processed by tax department officers through the compulsory scrutiny procedure.CBDT in the circular said: 'It is clarified that where return has been furnished in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and such notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued due to the information contained in NMS Cycle/ AIS/ Statement of Financial Transactions (SFT)/ CPC-TDS information/ information received from Directorate of I&CI, such return will not be taken up for compulsory scrutiny. Selection of such cases for scrutiny will be done through the CASS cycle.' What did the tax department say about sending 143 (2) tax notices by March 31, 2026? CBDT said: 'Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) shall upload the underlying documents for access by NaFAC in the following cases which are to be completed by NaFAC on or before 31.03.2026 and Notice u!s 143(2)/l42(1) of the Act calling for information shall be served on the assessee through NaFAC in these cases: Cases (other than search & seizure/survey) in which notices u/s 148 of the Act have been issued where return is either furnished or not furnished in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act.
Cases in which notices u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for income tax return have been issued & no returns have been furnished.' What did the income tax department say about non-search cases under Section 148? The CBDT mentioned in this circular that non-search cases selected under Section 148 don't need to be sent to the 'Central Charges' unless they fall under the Board's guidelines.For those uninitiated, the Central Charges is a specialised division within the income tax department that deals with assessments in certain types of cases, especially those related to high-stakes tax evasion, search and seizure cases, and other complicated tax issues.CBDT said: 'During the course of Search & Seizure action, information relating to some other persons, who may have one-off/ very few or limited financial transaction(s) with the main assessee group covered in the search u/s 132/132A of the Act, may be found. Such persons are not integrally connected with the core business of the main assessee searched and do not belong to the same business group. Often such persons are also not residing in the same city as that of the main assessee. In such cases, the relevant information is generally passed on to the jurisdictional AO for assessing them u/s 148 (for searches conducted/requisition made after 01.04.2021) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is clarified that all such non-search cases selected u/s 148 of the Act are not required to be transferred to the Central Charges unless covered by the Board's guidelines under F.No. 299/107/2013-IT(Inv.IIl)/1568 dated 25.04.2014.'
N.R. Narayana Murthy
Founder, Infosys Watch Now
Harsh Mariwala
Chairman & Founder, Marico Watch Now
Adar Poonawalla
CEO, Serum Institute of India Watch Now
Ronnie Screwvala
Chairperson & Co-founder, upGrad Watch Now
Puneet Dalmia
Managing Director, Dalmia Bharat group Watch Now
Martin Schwenk
Former President & CEO, Mercedes-Benz, Thailand Watch Now
Nadir Godrej
Managing Director, of Godrej Industries Watch Now
Manu Jain
Former- Global Vice President, Xiaomi Watch Now
Nithin Kamath
Founder, CEO, Zerodha Watch Now
Anil Agarwal
Executive Chairman, Vedanta Resources Watch Now
Dr. Prathap C. Reddy
Founder Chairman, Apollo Hospitals Watch Now
Vikram Kirloskar
Former Vice Chairman, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Watch Now
Kiran Mazumdar Shaw
Executive Chairperson, Biocon Limited Watch Now
Shashi Kiran Shetty
Chairman of Allcargo Logistics, ECU Worldwide and Gati Ltd Watch Now
Samir K Modi
Managing Director, Modi Enterprises Watch Now
R Gopalakrishnan
Former Director Tata Sons, Former Vice Chairman, HUL Watch Now
Sanjiv Mehta
Former Chairman / CEO, Hindustan Unilever Watch Now
Dr Ajai Chowdhry
Co-Founder, HCL, Chairman EPIC Foundation, Author, Just Aspire Watch Now
Shiv Khera
Author, Business Consultant, Motivational Speaker Watch Now
Nakul Anand
Executive Director, ITC Limited Watch Now
RS Sodhi
Former MD, Amul & President, Indian Dairy Association Watch Now
Anil Rai Gupta
Managing Director & Chairman, Havells Watch Now
Zia Mody
Co-Founder & Managing Partner, AZB & Partners Watch Now
Arundhati Bhattacharya
Chairperson & CEO, Salesforce India Watch Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Thailand to offer US more trade concessions to avert 36% tariff, Bloomberg News reports
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Tax woes for joint holders: Flawed reporting rules kindle reassessment fears
In India, it is common practice to have all assets and investments, and even bank accounts, in joint names with a spouse or child. This makes it convenient to transfer the asset or investment to the spouse or child or encashed in the event of the demise of the original investor, who would normally be the first holder of the asset or investment. However, dark clouds are now hovering over such joint holders, thanks to the systems and procedures of the Income Tax department. Every mutual fund is required to file an annual statement of financial transactions (SFT) with the Income Tax department, reflecting the names of persons who have acquired units of ₹10 lakh or more during the year. Also Read: Can AI manage your stock portfolio? Zerodha users are trying Similarly, reporting is required by every company issuing bonds or debentures or shares of ₹10 lakh or more to a person, every listed company buying back shares of ₹10 lakh or more from a person, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar of Assurances in respect of transactions of purchase of immovable property of ₹30 lakh or more, are required to report such transactions in the SFT. These transactions are then collated PAN-wise by the department and reflected in the investors', purchasers or sellers' PAN. Unfortunately, the rules provide that where a transaction is recorded in the name of more than one person, the aggregate amount of the transaction has to be reported for all the persons, i.e., not only the first holder but also the joint holders. Therefore, three years ago, many joint holders received emails from the Income Tax department showing such transactions in their names and asking them to confirm or deny such transactions. Given the fact that the transactions were those of the first holder and not their own, and were large and often disproportionate to the joint holders' own incomes, almost all joint holders replied online to reject the information. The online dropdown menu provided only 5 options as the response: Information is correct, Source is receipt of gift which is not taxable, Information is not fully correct, Information relates to other PAN/Year, and Information is duplicate/included in other information. The most appropriate one being—Information relates to Other PAN, which was selected, giving the PAN of the first holder as the one to whom the investment belonged. Also Read: Things you must know if you are thinking of getting a bank locker After 3 years, such joint holders have now received emails from the Income Tax department stating that their feedback has been rejected by the source. The feedback received from the joint holders was sent to the respective mutual fund, Registrar, company, etc, which had filed the SFT, and they were asked whether the feedback was correct. Given the manner in which the rules require reporting of the same transaction as that of each holder, including each joint holder, the mutual fund, etc., had no choice but to report the feedback as incorrect. The concern that all these joint holders would now have is that their assessments for those years may be threatened with reassessment by the tax authorities, a long and tiresome process. A similar thing has happened in the past in relation to joint holders of non-resident Indian (NRI) bank deposits (see Mint article, 9 May 2023). Reassessment proceedings will result in unnecessary wastage of time for both taxpayers and tax officials, all thanks to a defective process and system. Besides, taxpayers would have to pay tax professionals to represent them in such proceedings. And at the end of it all, what would be achieved? Nothing, besides the dropping of the reassessment proceedings. A sheer waste of valuable resources without any benefit to anyone. Why can the tax systems not be built with greater care to deal with such common situations? It is well known that joint holding is a very common phenomenon in India. Could there not have been an item in the drop-down menu, 'Joint holder for convenience", and asking for the PAN of the actual investor? That would have resolved all these problems, even if the rule required the mutual fund to provide the names of all joint holders against the investment. Also Read: DSP MF breaks new ground with India's first retail offshore fund from GIFT City The fallout of such e-mails has been that mutual fund compliance officers have been inundated with protests from joint holders about how they could have stated that the feedback is incorrect. The officers have to explain to irate investors that they have not made a mistake—the problem lies with the defective rules and systems of the tax department. Meanwhile, joint holders wait with bated breath for the next round of attacks on them from the tax department. Gautam Nayak is a partner at CNK & Associates LLP. Views are personal
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
India-US likely to take final decision on mini trade deal within 48 hours, CNBC-TV18 reports
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
