← 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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sanjay Sharma, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(3), Civic Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 3162/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, A.Yr. : 2017-18 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Income Tax Officer, 3Rd C-65, Floor, Jangpura Vs. Ward 54(3), Extension, Delhi – 110 014 Civic Centre, Minto Road, (Pan: Aunps3135K) New Delhi – 2 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)

agent / distributor for supplying milk. 2.3 Not appreciating the fact that in subsequent assessment year the case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny for the same reason of ‘Cash Deposit’ and no addition has been made by the AO. 3. That on the facts and circumstances ... declaring total income of Rs. 9,22,420/- and the same was processed accordingly. Later on, the case of the assesee was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice dated 9.8.2018 issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act for examination of cash deposit during the year. In response to notice

Mahesh Kudaravalli, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.234/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mahesh Kudaravalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Bbppk 3773 H Tenali. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 04/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 69A

other sources’ after claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act to tune of Rs. 1,63,000/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of ‘cash deposits 3 during demonetization period’. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 9/8/2018 and the same was duly served

Mahesh Kudaravalli, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.230/Viz/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mahesh Kudaravalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Bbppk 3773 H Tenali. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 04/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 69A

other sources’ after claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act to tune of Rs. 1,63,000/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of ‘cash deposits during demonetization period’. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 9/8/2018 and the same was duly served

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1), Btmc Building vs. Hemantha Raju, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/BANG/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillia, Judiial Member & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Srinath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. 10. The ld. AR raised a legal issue that the case was selected for limited scrutiny of cash deposits during demonetization, therefore AO should have examined only those deposits, which is not correct. As per notice issue u/s. 143(2) there ... used of the words ‘limited scrutiny’. We further note that as per sl. Nos. 3 to 10 of notice u/s. 142(1), the AO has asked for details on various points. Therefore, we reject these grounds of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Technotrade Impex India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3007/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 40

case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 declaring total income of %.Nil on 29.11.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under ‘CASS’ and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served

Kuldeep Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Bijnor

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

ITA 389/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyakuldeep Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (5), 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Bijnor. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ayhpk2036M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Because, ld. CIT (A) further erred to consider the fact that the order of ld. AO is cryptic whereby neither the issue involved for limited scrutiny nor the basis of rejection of explanation is clearly dealt as per law besides after applying provisions of section 44AD further addition

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. The Sardar Patel Co Opertaive Credit Society Limited, Vijapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is

ITA 526/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Hasmukh V Doshi & Sh. Mehal H DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

income was processed by Revenue under section 143(1) of the 1961 Act, and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny assessment through CASS. The notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued to the assesse by Revenue. The assessee filed submissions ... operative Credit Society engaged in providing credit facility to its members. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS. 7.2 The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act to the tune of Rs. 32,449/- being

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. The Sardar Patel Co Opertaive Credit Society Limited, Vijapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is

ITA 525/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Hasmukh V Doshi & Sh. Mehal H DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

income was processed by Revenue under section 143(1) of the 1961 Act, and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny assessment through CASS. The notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued to the assesse by Revenue. The assessee filed submissions ... operative Credit Society engaged in providing credit facility to its members. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS. 7.2 The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act to the tune of Rs. 32,449/- being

Tn Civil Supplies Corporation Staff Coop Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. AO, Non Corp Ward 12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1212/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita No.1212/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, -
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., and claimed the same as deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO while framing assessment in limited scrutiny assessment has examined the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act and even otherwise on merits also, the assessee's case is squarely covered

Shri Nagjibhai Kuberbhai Kheni, Bhavnagar vs. Asst Unit, I Tax Dept. ( Income Tax Officer Ward 1(9) Bhavanagar ), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 862/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

Income 22.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.3,13,560/- and agricultural income of Rs.25,86,233/- The Return of Income was taken up for ‘limited scrutiny’ assessment for verifying the agricultural income, since for the earlier Asst. Year 2019-20, the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs.6

Jairaj Singh Solanki, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 153/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

illiterate person. The assessee had furnished the return of income on 15.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,50,040/- and during the course of limited scrutiny proceedings, the assessee has responded on two occasions but his submission has not been considered. However, the penalty has been levied for not complying ... declaring income of Rs. 2,50,040/- and is earning income from running taxi/car hiring business. After the case being selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of, “credit card payments”, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act during served upon the assessee. The Revenue

M/S. Finwizard Technology Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 15/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

return of income for the year under consideration on 17.10.2016 declaring a loss of Rs.43,17,974/- 2.2 The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued

Ahmed Alam Khan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

filed the return of income on 21/09/2016 declaring an income of Rs. 65,21,520/-. The return was selected for the limited scrutiny to examine the sale consideration of property in ITR, which is less than the sale consideration reported from Form 26QB and large deduction claimed under section ... light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the assessment order that this case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine (1) sale consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration reported in Form 26QB(Form 26QB and Schedule

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

SCOPE OF Sec.2(14) read with Sec.45 of the Act. 2. Taking cognisance of the fact that the case is taken up for Limited Scrutiny as recorded in the preamble of the asst, order, dt.18.12.2019, the Ld.A.O., formulated the addition towards Capital Gains without the prior approval of the Pr.CIT ... CBDT's circular Letter No. Mo.225/162/2016/ITA. II.dt. 11.07.2016 wherein it instructed that prior approval of the Pr.CIT is obligatory for converting the Limited Scrutiny cases into Complete Scrutiny cases and due to non- appearance to the guidelines of the CBDT which are statutory and binding upon the A.O., the impugned

Bhaskar Prajapati Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT-16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3698/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 54F

3698/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Bhaskar Prataprai Shah 2. Brief facts of the case are, the case of the assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue of "Capital Gains Deduction Claimed". Assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 declaring an income

Preeti Bhardwaj, K vs. ITO Ward 29(3), Civic Centre

Appeal are allowed

ITA 78/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

arbitrary and without any basis. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by converting limited scrutiny proceedings into full scrutiny without mandatory compliance of guidelines issued by CBDT is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2.2 That notice ... issued for the purpose of limited scrutiny of verification of cash tax payments and the issue of other cash deposits being not part of reasons for issuing limited scrutiny notice, the impugned Assessment order passed without converting limited scrutiny into regular/full scrutiny by obtaining prior approval

Sandeep Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(8) 311, Deepali Chowk, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan Agbpg9204H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 69A

Chemicals”. He e-filed his return for AY 2017-18 on 30.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 13,57,300/-. His case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Large Cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year”. Statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income

Krishna Murthy Arrym, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 192/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 192/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Krishna Murthy Arrym Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(4) Pan:Adepa9498F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Harshita Chouhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Smt. Harshita Chouhan, DR
Section 143(2)

declaring Page 1 of 8 ITA 192 of 2024 Krishna Murthy Arrym total income of Rs.4,99,530/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposit during the year. Accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served

Chandolu Vijay Kumar, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntuir

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 46/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

29/9/2018 for the AY 2018-19. The return was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposits. Thereafter, statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued

Malaya Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Durgapur

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

ITA 1444/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1444/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Malaya Mukherjee Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, B-132, Aldrin Path Vs Circle-1, Durgapur Bidhannagar Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Alspm9084D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal As Non-Admissible On The Ground That There Was Three Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeal When The Assessment Order Was Dated 14.12.2018 Which Date Was Stated In The Memo Of Appeal But In Fact, The Order Was Not Served Or Uploaded During The Office Hours On 14.12.2018 & Was Even Singed After Close Of Office Hours & Further 15Th & 16Th December Being Saturday & Sunday, There Was No Delay & The Appeal Was Filed Within Time When The Actual Date Of Service Is Taken. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal By Only 3 Days Without Even Granting Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 43(6)

individual and declared income of Rs. 73,35,580/- in the e-return furnished for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 29/09/2016. Case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS followed notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The reason for scrutiny was “difference between opening and closing