A set of guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as F. No. 225/169/2019/ITA-II, dated 5 September 2019.
The Board's annual list of the cases its officers must take up for complete scrutiny by hand in financial year 2019-20, as distinct from the cases the computer throws up. It sets out five parameters. It also records how computer aided scrutiny selection works alongside the manual list under CASS-2019, and tells officers what to do where a return picked up under CASS is never verified by the assessee. It is a working instruction to the assessing machinery.
These are guidelines. Where a section says the Board may issue guidelines and that they bind, guidelines carry more weight than an ordinary administrative direction — so read the enabling words before deciding which kind these are.
Five categories are to be taken up compulsorily. First, cases with a recurring addition made in an earlier year that has attained finality or been confirmed in appeal, where the addition exceeds Rs. 25 lakh in the eight metro charges — Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune — Rs. 10 lakh elsewhere, and Rs. 10 crore in transfer pricing cases. Second, survey cases under section 133A, with carve-outs where nothing was impounded and the returned income is not lower than the earlier year's. Third, search and seizure assessments under sections 153A, 153C, 158BA, 158BC and 158BD read with section 143(3). Fourth, cases claiming exemption under section 12A, section 35(1)(ii), (iia) or (iii), or section 10(23C) without a valid approval. Fifth, cases where credible information of tax evasion has come from a law enforcement or regulatory authority, taken up with prior administrative approval.
Scrutiny selection is otherwise done by CASS on data analytics and profiling, without discretion. A small set of cases still needs to be picked up by hand, either because the department already holds material — a survey, a search, information from another authority — or because an issue keeps recurring and has already been decided against the assessee. The Board issues these parameters each year so that the manual selection is uniform across charges and the discretion is bounded.
The guidelines are addressed to the Board's own officers and bind them; a Principal Commissioner cannot pick a case outside these parameters or refuse one inside them. An assessee cannot be assessed merely because he falls within a category, and equally cannot resist a valid notice under section 143(2) by saying the parameters were not met — the Tribunal and the courts test the notice against the Act, not against this letter.
Financial year 2019-20, for returns being selected in that year. The letter is dated 5 September 2019.
The monetary thresholds turn on the earlier addition having attained finality or been confirmed in first appeal, so check the appellate history before conceding that a case falls within parameter (i). Note also the direction that a return selected under CASS but left unverified is to be reopened by notice under section 148: the validity of such reopening depends on section 147 and not on this instruction.
CASS is a system-based method for scrutiny selection which identifies the cases through data-analytics and three-hundred sixty-degree data profiling of taxpayers and in a non-discretionary manner.
— the Central Board of Direct Taxes, guidelines F. No. 225/169/2019/ITA-II, 5 September 2019. Read it in the department’s own PDF.
| Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 | Now, in the Income-tax Act, 2025 |
|---|---|
| section 143 | section 270 |
| section 133A | section 253, section 261 |
| section 153A | no counterpart recorded |
| section 153C | no counterpart recorded |
| section 148 | section 280 |
| section 12A | section 332, section 347, section 348, section 349 |
| section 10 | section 11, section 19 |
| section 35 | section 45, section 66 |
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
The Income-tax Officer examined witnesses behind my back and used their statements against me. Is that material evidence at all?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
The company I represent amalgamated years ago, the department knew about it, and the assessment order still came in the old company's name. Is that order void, or can the department call it a curable slip?
What here is the Board’s and what is ours. The document is the Central Board of Direct Taxes’ own. Its number, its date and the words quoted above are reproduced from the Board’s own PDF, which is here. Everything else on this page is ours: the plain-English account of what the document is and what it does, the reading of which provision it turns on, the note on what to watch, and the choice of cases. Where our account and the document part, the document governs.
An order of the Board binds the department, not you and not a court. The Board writes to its own officers. An assessee may hold the department to an order or an instruction that helps him; the department cannot hold an assessee to one that hurts him, and the Tribunal and the courts decide the law for themselves. This is the most common mistake made with this material, and it is worth making twice: a direction of the Board is not a section of the Act.
What we could not settle. The five parameters, the opening line and the closing paragraphs were read; the wording of the carve-outs within parameters (ii) and (v) was read in summary rather than word for word. The letter does not on its face recite the provision under which it is issued, so the enabling provision above is left empty.