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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

loss of (-)Rs.97,64,90,311. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and case was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny through CASS and subsequently, others statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO made following additions

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

Sreesharada Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 28 September

Sreesharada Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

Mr. Muniyappa Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1203/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 69A

filed his return of income on 28/03/2018. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter it was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, for enquiring about the cash deposits made during the year. Notices u/s. Page 3 of 7 143(2) as well

Poonam Sodhi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7105/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7105/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sodhi, 5217, Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Bfvps-5961-R बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 8,03,000/- Comprising Of Income From House Property & Interest Income. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Large Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Vis-À-Vis The Returned Income. Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 8,03,000/- comprising of income from house property and interest income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine large cash deposits during demonetization period vis-à-vis the returned income. Statutory notices

Vikas Kumar Dogra, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer Ward 4(5), Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7102/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7102/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Vikas Kumar Dogra, Flat No.B-702, Alaknanda Apartment, Gurgaon, Haryana 122011 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Amypd-3220-D बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward -4(5), Vanijya Nikunj, Shankar Chowk Road, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurgaon, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Haryana 122016 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri R. K Gaur, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 24.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri R. K Gaur, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Solitary Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The Case Of The Assessee Is On Account Of Credit Card Payment Of Rs.5,36,986/- In Cash During The Period Relevant To Ay 2017-18. The Ld. Counsel Submits That The Ao Had Selected The Case Of Assessee For Limited Scrutiny To Examine The Credit Card Payment In Cash In Respect Of Citi Bank Credit Card No.4386280020862080. The Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri R. K Gaur, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

cash during the period relevant to AY 2017-18. The ld. Counsel submits that the AO had selected the case of assessee for limited scrutiny to examine the credit card payment in cash in respect of Citi Bank credit card no.4386280020862080. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Income

Himmatbhai Madhabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhimmatbhai M. Patel, Vs. Ito, 18, Kailash Dham Part-2, Ward 5(3)(1), India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380024 [Pan :Aanpd 2497 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs 11,04,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verifying "Large investment in property as compare to total income". The Assessing Officer has passed order

Tapas Kundu, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1819/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1819/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Tapas Kundu,………………………..……...……Appellant 237, Dumdum Park, Lake Town, North 24-Parganas, Bangur Avenue S.O., Kolkata-700055 [Pan:Afypk5224R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-61(3), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

said return of income was subsequently processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for examination of cash deposit during demonetization period. Accordingly notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 143(3)Section 263

A.Y.2017-18 was filed by the assessee firm on 31/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,50,750/-. The case was selected under 'Limited Scrutiny' and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act for the purpose of verification of (i) unsecured loans (ii) squared up loans and (iii) investment in immovable ... property. The aforesaid items were subjected to verification under 'Limited Scrutiny' and accordingly, the Id. AO sought information vide notice u/s.142(1) dated 06/09/2019 regarding the aforesaid items directing the assessee to furnish the details in the prescribed format. The Id. AO issued yet another notice u/s.142

Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2204/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Vs Ito Ward-10(2), Kolkata C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aahca 2447 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As In The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Against The Said Assessment Order, The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Categorically Held That The Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 20.06.2022 Which Is Culminated In The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2022, Which Is An Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Was Not In Conformity With The Cbdt Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23-06-2017. It Was The Submission That As Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal

For Respondent: None

Section 12ESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

that in terms of the above CBDT instruction, the notice u/s 143(2) has to be in any of the three formats namely; (i) Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (ii) Complete Scrutiny (computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) and (iii) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny. Since, the notice has been issued ... Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) 4 Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note

M/S Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4803/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

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

October 2017 declaring total income at nil. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, the two flagged issues being: (i) verification of expenditure debited in relation to exempt income, and (ii) examination of low returned income

Harishchandrasinh Pratapsinh Parmar, Panchmahal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Godhra, Ward Godhra

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

ITA 1494/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

that the assessee, a petrol pump operator, filed his return of income declaring income of Rs. 94,360/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine substantial cash deposits made during the financial year, particularly during the demonetization period. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that

Avnish Kumar, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 919/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. G. Saratha, SR-DR

that the assessee has filed Return of Income declaring total income of Rs.2,66,76,180/- on 31.10.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment to verify the income from other sources, details of assets and liabilities and Capital Gains/income on sale of property. During the assessment proceedings

Yugendar Puppala, Warangal vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1329/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1329/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ms. Yugendra Puppala Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Warangal Income Tax Pan:Abspp4161E Circle-1, Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)

holding the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as bad-in-law as the AO had extended the scope of the limited scrutiny without obtaining the prior written administrative approval of the concerned Pr. CIT in violation of CBDT Instructions. 2. That on the facts and circumstances ... income of Rs.25,28,380/-. The Page 2 of 6 ITA No 1329 of 2025 Yugendra Puppala case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were issued

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Rakesh Arora, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69A

addition of Rs. 4,65,85,000/- u/s 69A on technical ground that the additions were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, ignoring the fact that the addition was clearly within the scope of the reason for limited scrutiny which stated: -"(i) Whether the investment and income relating to securities ... given relief on the premises that the ld. AO ought to have converted the limited scrutiny case to complete scrutiny category by taking prior approval of supervisory authority. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to briefly examine the brief factual matrix of the case. As per facts recorded

DCIT, Delhi vs. Mkf Logistics Pvt Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 3056/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Mkf Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. E/63B, South Extension Part 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaacm5865E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Shri Saksham Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,32,270/- On 10.09.2016. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass, Accordingly Notices Under Section 143(2)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C

case are, assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.31,32,270/- on 10.09.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, accordingly notices under section 143(2) 2 and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served ... above mentioned order passed by the AO, the appellant filed the instant appeal. The AO stated that the case was selected under limited scrutiny as receipts u /s 1940 and 194J of the Income tax Act, 1961 (as per 26AS) were more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (Service

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3029/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 64Section 69Section 90

income of the Assessee in terms of Section 64(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The case of the Assessee was taken in Limited Scrutiny on grounds of Double Taxation Relief was claimed u/s 90/91 and the Assessee was having foreign assets. The Notice in this regard was issued

Adhishwar Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 568/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)

24/09/2015 vide acknowledgement No. 815317531240915 showing total income of Rs.7,983/-.The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under the category "Limited Scrutiny" and accordingly notice u/s.143 (2) of the Act was issued on 21/04/2016 and duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that during ... rejected the ground of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO and the additions made therein beyond the scope of the ‘limited scrutiny’ by observing as under: “I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments

Society for Advancement of Village Economy, Gaya vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna

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

ITA 14/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 28

case are that the return of income of the assessee Trust was filed showing ‘NIL’ income on 28.06.2015 which was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon ... Patna. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the details and books of account and vouchers were examined and the limited scrutiny was converted to complete scrutiny with the approval of the competent authority as per the CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016 dated 14.07.2016. The Assessing ITA No.: 14/PAT/2018 Assessment Year