Scrutiny selection under CBDT instructions upheld where prima facie review sufficed and no substantial question of law arose.

Scrutiny selection under CBDT instructions was upheld because, at the return-picking stage, only a prima facie view is required and not a final merits determination. The concurrent factual findings that the assessee's case was selected in accordance with the applicable instructions were not shown to be perverse, and the later position on the exact quantum of capital introduced did not invalidate the assessment under Section 143(3). In the absence of perversity, no substantial question of law arose, so the challenge to the scrutiny selection failed and the appeal was rejected against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the selection of the assessee's case for scrutiny under the CBDT guidelines was valid and whether any substantial question of law arose from the assessment framed under Section 143(3).

Analysis: Selection for scrutiny is based only on a prima facie view at the stage of picking up a return, and not on a final determination of merits. The concurrent findings of the lower authorities were that the case had been selected in accordance with the applicable instructions, and the later position on the exact quantum of capital introduced did not vitiate the scrutiny assessment. In the absence of perversity in those findings, no substantial question of law could be said to arise.

Conclusion: The challenge to scrutiny selection failed and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the scrutiny selection was held to be in accordance with the applicable instructions and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of scrutiny selection, only a prima facie opinion is required, and a concurrent factual finding that the case was selected in accordance with the applicable instructions will not give rise to a substantial question of law absent perversity.

---