KISHAN KARKARIA,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, WARD RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA

ITA 384/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO widened the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval. Therefore, the addition made on an issue outside the limited scrutiny scope is deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 266 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 6,82,82,914/- on account of bank deposits, despite the assessment being selected for limited scrutiny concerning high value cash withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO can make additions on issues outside the scope of limited scrutiny without prior approval?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 29/05/2026Pronounced: 29/05/2026

PerBench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20/06/2025 in appeal no.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-1/14862/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arup Chatterjee, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 266 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition. The reasons in the petition are plausible and reasonable. Consequently, the delay in filing the appe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →