← All Phrases

“limited scrutiny”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)2,866 judgments

The decision most relied on for limited scrutiny is Vipan Khanna v. CIT (255 ITR 220), cited in 140 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on limited scrutiny

Vipan Khanna v. CIT
255 ITR 220 · 2002 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Assessment proceedings conclude and become final if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is not served within the prescribed statutory period. This case also clarified the historical position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT
361 ITR 458 · 2014 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The selection of cases for scrutiny must be completed within the time prescribed by CBDT instructions. The department is bound by its own standards and cannot act with discrimination or selectively apply them.

PCIT v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd.
155 Taxmann.com 580 · 2023 · High Court
31
citing judgments

Assessing officers cannot introduce issues for inquiry that were not part of the original limited scrutiny, without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements.

Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT
125 Taxmann.com 83 · 2021 · High Court
25
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the scope of issues selected for limited scrutiny during the assessment proceedings.

PCIT v. Shark Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd.
151 Taxmann.com 71 · 2023 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked to find fault with an assessment order on an issue not covered by 'limited scrutiny' where the Assessing Officer could not have examined such an issue.

CIT v. Smt. Padmavathi
120 Taxmann.com 187 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to revenue if the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have travelled beyond the issues forming the subject matter of 'limited scrutiny'. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke Section 263 to set aside an assessment on grounds not forming part of the limited scrutiny.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another
246 ITR 173 · 2000 · High Court
13
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer can initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 even if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed time, provided the conditions for Section 147 are met. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) does not preclude recourse to Section 147.

Judgments citing limited scrutiny

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

filed its original return of income declaring at Rs.2,15,870/- on 13-09- 2015. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited scrutiny. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08-04-2016. The Authorized representative filed the power

Radhika Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Dy.CIT 2 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

assessee, on 23.09.2015. The assessee derives income from the selling of the gold and gold ornaments. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, hence a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19.09.2016, which was duly served upon the assessee

Sweetyben Ankitkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1196/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y 2017-18 on 25.12.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the deduction claimed against income from other source. The A.O. noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction

Viiking Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai City

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3433/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

revision order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner on the ground that in instant case limited in instant case limited scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability ... revenue when Assessing Officer could n revenue when Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond ot have travelled beyond issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. The Order of issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed

Viiking Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai City

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3432/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

revision order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner on the ground that in instant case limited in instant case limited scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability ... revenue when Assessing Officer could n revenue when Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond ot have travelled beyond issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. The Order of issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed

Viiking Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3431/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

revision order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner on the ground that in instant case limited in instant case limited scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability ... revenue when Assessing Officer could n revenue when Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond ot have travelled beyond issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. The Order of issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed

Viiking Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3430/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

revision order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner on the ground that in instant case limited in instant case limited scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability ... revenue when Assessing Officer could n revenue when Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond ot have travelled beyond issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. The Order of issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed

Viiking Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai City

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3414/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

revision order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner on the ground that in instant case limited in instant case limited scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability shown and disallowance scrutiny was in respect of excess liability ... revenue when Assessing Officer could n revenue when Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond ot have travelled beyond issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. The Order of issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. issues forming subject matter of limited scrutiny. Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed

Kadubai Asaram Dalvi @ Anita Bhaskar Bankar, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2332/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2332/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Dhengle (virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

perused the record placed before me and return of income for A.Y.2017-18 filed on 24.03.2018 declaring income of ₹3,52,290. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason cash deposit during the demonetization period. Valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act duly served

Gunmala Devi Jain, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

ITA 14/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Gunmala Devi Jain…..……..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 401, Wing-B, Windsor Palace, 6A Iron Side Road, Ballygunge, Kol-700019.. [Pan: Acrpj8161E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kr. Mehta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 156 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay Which Are Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 57

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 23,35,690/-. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS and the assessment Gunmala Devi Jain was competed u/s 143(3) of the Act at the income of Rs. 57,00,270/- after ... find that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.23,35,690/- and the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. We further find that the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has held that there should a direct nexus between income and expenditure which

Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Sahakari Pat Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Pcit-3, Pune Sahakari Pat Maryadit Vs. A/P Manchar, Tal-Ambegaon, Dist. Pune – 410503 Pan: Aaaad5228N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandip Argade Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sandip ArgadeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS under the ‘limited scrutiny’ category for examination of the following issues: i) Investments / Advances / Loans ii) Deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A 4. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on the reason that the capital gains deduction claimed thereafter, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Snowfall Commotrade Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 14ASection 250

Private Limited Company and filed its income tax return on declaring total income at Rs.96,81,450/-. Thereafter the return was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” and the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs.7,16,37,747/- after making disallowance u/s.14A amounting to Rs.2,84,754/- and disallowance

Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Ranchi vs. Dukhharan Memorial Charitable Trust, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 250

trust, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017–18 declaring nil income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued. During the course of assessment

Chandrashekhar Vishnu Paranjpe (HUF), Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1587/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora andFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire

Man Mohan Goenka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

ITA 2111/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2111/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Man Mohan Goenka, 5A, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Rd Alipore, West Bengal-700027 Pan No. :Admpg 2616 В (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) Vs Ito Ward-43(1), Kolkata निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.08.2025 By The Id. Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Id. Ar That The Notice Issued U/S.143(2) Of The Act In The Case Of The Assessee On 10.08.2018 Is Not Valid In Line With The Instruction Issued By The Cbdt In Instruction F No. 225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23.06.2017. Copy Of The Notice Issued U/S.143(2) Of The Act Dated 23.09.2019 Is Reproduced As Below :- भारत सरकार / Government Of India वित्त मंत्रालय / Ministry Of Finance आयकर विभाग / Income Tax Department Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 43(3), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. The three formats of notice(s) are:- Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note ... CBDT Copy to: i. Chairman, CBDT and all Members, CBDT ii. Addl. CIT, Data base Cell for uploading on Departmental Website 5 ITA No.2111/KOL/2025 Limited Scrutiny (Computer Alded Scrutiny Selection) Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 PAN No: Dated: To Sir/Madam Year. filed vide

M/S. Dhanbad Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

ITA 1429/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
Section 131Section 143(2)

Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note ... Rohit Garg) Director-ITA.II, CBDT Copy to: i. Chairman, CBDT and all Members, CBDT ii. Addl. CIT, Data base Cell for uploading on Departmental Website Limited Scrutiny (Computer Alded Scrutiny Selection) Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 PAN No: Dated: To Sir/Madam Year. filed vide

Krishnamurthy Pandy, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2560/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Santhanu, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

return of income on 07.10.2017 wherein a sum of Rs.5,24,870/- was admitted as income. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits made during the year. Thereafter, a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2018, asking the assessee

Ranjit V Srivatsaa, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1755/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. G.Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

deduction u/s.54 of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,36,76,550/- under the head capital gains. 4. The case was selected for ‘Limited scrutiny’ and accordingly the statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the :-3-: ITA. No:1755/Chny/2025 assessee submitted that the sale

Rama Kant Tiwari, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6230/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri D C Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

that the assessee filed return declaring income or Rs. 10,62,540/- for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27.12.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s143(3) at an assessed income of Rs. 31,97,160/- after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during