“limited scrutiny”

Shri Arjanbhai Dayaljibhai Parmar, Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

individual and filed its return of income declaring income at Rs. 2,89,870/- only. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected under limited scrutiny on account of large cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. As per the record available with the revenue, there was cash ... interest of revenue by observing as under: 4. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen that the above case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify "Cash deposit during the year". It is noticed from the statement of assessee's bank account No.31749236480 that the assessee

Smt. Sudha Modi, Bhopal vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 declaring her total income at Rs.74,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee ... email through ITBA Portal on 25.09.2018. The reason for limited scrutiny under CASS was large value cash deposits during demonetization as compared to return of income. Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was duly issued to the Union Bank of India on 02.05.2019 requiring the bank statement

Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

submitted by ld AR that the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2018. The assessment was a ‘Limited Scrutiny assessment’ and in the assessment of ‘limited scrutiny’ the issue was whether contract receipts/fees have been correctly offered to tax. This has been examined ... been accepted. It was the submission that the Pr. CIT has invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act and has treated the said ‘limited scrutiny assessment’ order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on two grounds that there was mismatch in the 26AS in respect

Shree Salabatpura Urban Co-Op[. Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shree Salabatpura Urban Co. Op. D.C.I.T. Credit Society Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. 4/2424, Salabatpura Main Road, Surat. Salabatpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Aaaas 3509 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited major expenses against commission income is on account of salary expenses

Ruchi Jain, M/S Darsh Marketing, Ratlam vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in not appreciating that the return of income of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue 'Cash deposit during the year', which has been duly explained/justified by the assessee before the Ld. AO during the course of regular ... notice of scrutiny u/s 143(2) as well as the order of assessment and pointed out that the case of assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” to examine “cash deposit during the year” in bank account only. Ld. AR then carried us to a Paper-Book filed

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Analogous law also supports the contention: 8.1 A somewhat similar legal factual position arose in the cases where assessment has been selected for limited scrutiny purposes. The law is well settled that in the limited scrutiny assessment, the AO cannot be expected to make enquiry only to the extent ... reason/ basis of selection of the case for the 34 | P a g e limited scrutiny and therefore, the CIT cannot invoke S. 263 on the issues, which were not made basis for selection of the case. Obviously for the reason that the AO is not legally entitled to enter

Madhusoodan Paliwal, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradshri Madhusoodan Paliwal, Vs Ito 95-96D, Hiran Magri, Sector-14, Ward-1(1) Udaipur-313002 (Raj) Udaipur (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahlpp1550C Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/03/2023 Date Of 22/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-2016 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 11.09.2020. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason large cash deposits in saving bank accounts and the assessee had also transferred one or more properties during the year. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer ... outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, assessment was taken up for limited scrutiny and the items to be scrutinized, was related to cash deposits and transfer of one or more properties during the year. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the decision of the authorities

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Page 1-3 of paper book). Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 14.08.2018 was issued for limited scrutiny being cash deposited during demonetization period (Page 4-7 of paper book). Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 04.09.2019 was issued wherein assessee was asked to explain source ... N0.204/IND/2019 INDORE BENCH, INDORE 29.01.2020 Additional ground of appeal no. 3 1. That case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with the reason large value cash deposited during demonetization period as compared to returned income. Throughout assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer through various notices raised queries towards

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Page 1-3 of paper book). Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 14.08.2018 was issued for limited scrutiny being cash deposited during demonetization period (Page 4-7 of paper book). Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 04.09.2019 was issued wherein assessee was asked to explain source ... N0.204/IND/2019 INDORE BENCH, INDORE 29.01.2020 Additional ground of appeal no. 3 1. That case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with the reason large value cash deposited during demonetization period as compared to returned income. Throughout assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer through various notices raised queries towards

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Page 1-3 of paper book). Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 14.08.2018 was issued for limited scrutiny being cash deposited during demonetization period (Page 4-7 of paper book). Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 04.09.2019 was issued wherein assessee was asked to explain source ... N0.204/IND/2019 INDORE BENCH, INDORE 29.01.2020 Additional ground of appeal no. 3 1. That case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with the reason large value cash deposited during demonetization period as compared to returned income. Throughout assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer through various notices raised queries towards

Diamond Heritage, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel submitted that the assessee’s case was selected under limited scrutiny for the reason of cash deposit during demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profit as compared to preceding year ... perused the material on record and case law cited above. Admittedly, the assessee’s case was selected 4 Diamond Heritage v. Pr.CIT for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of large cash deposit during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in the sales. It is seen that

M/S. Asean Box Corporation, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

which reads as under: Asian Box Corporation vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 “11. You are further informed that, your case has been selected for Limited Scrutiny for the reason “LARGE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.57, HIGHER TURNOVER REPORTED IN SERVICE TAX RETURN AS COMPARED TO ITR” you are requested to furnish ... erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We observe that the assessment of the assessee was taken up under “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verifying the following CASS reasons “large deduction claimed under Section 57, higher turnover reported in Service Tax Return as compared to ITR”. Accordingly, the very

Shri Maganbhai Bachubhai Rupapara, Shapar (Veraval), Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

addition made u/s. 68 of the Act may kindly be deleted.” 3. The assessee has also taken the following additional Grounds of appeal: “3. Limited Scrutiny Assessment was initiated to verify source of cash deposit. Addition made on account of agricultural income ... purview of limited scrutiny assessment. The addition may kindly be deleted. This ground of appeal was not before the first appellate authority. Being a legal ground, the appellant requests your honour to admit the same and oblige.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

appeal which may be argued at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Facts are that the appellant’s case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS with the reasons of “Cash deposit during demonetization period. During the course of online assessment proceeding, the assessee submitted the relevant supporting documentary ... which reads as under: “In response to your above said notice, it is submitted that the case of the assessee was selected under CASS Limited Scrutiny with the reasons “Cash deposit for demonetization period”. As the case was selected for limited scrutiny, the assessee has furnished each and every document

Sabbarapu Narayana Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

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

admitting a total income of Rs. 5,10,480/- u/s 44AD of the Act(presumptive taxation). Subsequently, the case was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify the sources for cash deposits during the year. Accordingly, notices U/s. 143(2) was issued electronically on 9/8/2018 and served

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

circumstances of the case. v) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not justified in law in expanding the limited scrutiny assessment beyond its scope, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The respondent / cross objector craves to add, alter, delete, substitute ... valid in law. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that initially as per the notice issued u/s. 143(2) the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examining of interest expenses and unsecured loans. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer has travelled beyond the limited scrutiny

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

circumstances of the case. v) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not justified in law in expanding the limited scrutiny assessment beyond its scope, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The respondent / cross objector craves to add, alter, delete, substitute ... valid in law. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that initially as per the notice issued u/s. 143(2) the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examining of interest expenses and unsecured loans. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer has travelled beyond the limited scrutiny