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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Anmol Himanshu Patel Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4) Now Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1479/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

circumstances of the case of the appellant, the assessment order, having been passed pursuant to the action of the AO expanding the scope of limited scrutiny without following the due procedure is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances ... course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on following two issues: (i) Sales turnover mismatch. (ii) Increase in Capital 3.1. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, during the assessment proceedings, noted that

Ram Kishore Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1154/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmalate Shri Ram Kishore Seth, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir, Smt. Rama Seth), New Delhi. Nd-63, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Ejips0799P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 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, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 24Section 54Section 54FSection 68

appeal being a legal issue. 7. Brief facts of the case are, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny for cash deposits and capital gains on sale of property. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income

Mala, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 1956/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvan M, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 69A

other sources. For A.Y. 2017-18, she filed her return declaring total income of ₹5,71,900/- only. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits of ₹27,97,670/- in the assessee’s Axis

Nemani Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 556/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.556/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. The Income Tax Officer Nemani Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Lakshmi Broiler Farm Ward – 2(5) Vemula Valasa, Anandapuram Mandal Income Tax Office Visakhapatnam - 531162 Infinity Tower Shankaramatham Road [Pan: Abxpn2679L] Santhipuram Visakhapatnam – 530016

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 04.08.2020. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of examining “Expenditure of Personal Nature”. Thereafter notice under section 143(2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act was issued

The Chodavaram Co Operative Sugars Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO after perusing the details furnished by the assessee observed that the assessee has paid bonus amount of Rs.1,27,03,496/- during the F.Y.2017-18 on various dates from April 2017 to September 2017. The Ld.AO observed that generally, bonus is declared during Diwali season and paid accordingly and therefore, concluded that the bonus amount of Rs.1,27,03,490 does not pertain to the impugned assessment year and therefore disallowed the same.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the following issues : (i) Bonus or commission to employee (ii) Expenditure of personal nature The Ld.AO observed that as per the P&L account

Venkata Narasimham Thota, Kirlampudi Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 207/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.207/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Venkata Narasimham Thota, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Veeravaram, Kirlampudi. Ward-2, Pan: Achpt2895H Kakinada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

filed by the assessee was processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited scrutiny” through CASS to verify the “cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period”. 3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under

Vivek Industries, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

ITA 133/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 150Section 54DSection 54F

subject year, i.e., AY 2018-19 on 11/08/2018, declared an income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the case of the assessee firm was selected for “limited scrutiny assessment” for verifying its claim for deduction of “capital gains”. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice under section

Rayat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. ITO Ward-5, Satara

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

ITA 373/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

declared in the e-return for A.Y. 2015-16 furnished on 25.09.2015. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of valid notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Audited Financial statements and bank account extracts were

Satendra Kumar, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, ground no.1 and

ITA 6994/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Satendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer, H. No.60, Gali No.2, Mamura, Noida, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan:Arwpk 1280 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 68

business of Civil contract, filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.5.00 lakhs(approximately). The case was selected for limited scrutiny about the increase in cash deposit during demonetization period. During assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made cash deposit with ... Operative Bank Total 30,49,000/- 31,38,000/- 7. I find that case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny about cash deposit during demonetization period. The cash deposit during demonetization period as per summery prepared by assessing officer is of Rs.30,49,000/-only. However, the Assessing Officer

Patel Kalidas Meghjibhai (HUF), Surat vs. DCIT Circle-3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 85/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.85/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Patel Kalidas Meghjibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ (Huf) Circle-3(2), Surat, Room No.410, Vs. 901, Solitaire Brijwasi Estate, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Umrigar School Hotel Surat-395 001 Marriott Road, Umra, Surat- 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajhp 1504 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

income on 15.08.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.1,100/- and claimed exempt agriculture income of Rs.20,20,326/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued, calling for various details and supporting documents. However, details were

Vinubhai Keshavbhai Rabadiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vinubhai Keshavbhai Rabadiya, Income-Tax Officer, 38, Bharat Nagar Society, Ward 3(3)(1), L.H. Road, Varachha, बनाम/ Surat Surat-395006 Vs. [Pan : Acfpp 2904 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Pandya, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

income of Rs.26,20,240/-. The return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and was selected for Limited Scrutiny Assessment to examine whether the claim of agricultural income was correct, considering the larger agricultural income in comparison to total income. Accordingly, notice

Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel Through His Lh Narendrabhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-01 Bardoli, Bardoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1300/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1300/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel, Vs. Ito, Through His L/H Narendrabhai Patel, Ward – 2, At & Post – Tundi, Tal – Palsana, Bardoli Surat - 394315 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Asapp4783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 05.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.11,18,990/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2016. In response, it was submitted that the assessee had died on 14.04.2016. Thereafter

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee company was processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying, viz., (i) large scale increase in sundry creditors and reduction in business income as compared to preceding year; and (ii) large scale share

Rishi L Anandani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Bilaspur, Aykar Vibhag Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.709/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rishi L Anandani Bhakt Kawaram Ward, Ward No.20, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aqspa4173C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rishi L Anandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs.3,98,320/- and the return was duly processed. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period. Statutory notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2) of the Income

Avkar Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.715/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Avkar Urban Co-Op. Credit Soc. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle – 3(3), 113-114, Sunrise Chambers, Surat Varachha Road, Mini Bazar, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa8341B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Aakash Bakashwala, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 15.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for large deduction under Chapter VI- A of the Act from total income. The assessee society was engaged in the business

Hindcon Chemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1807/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) Hindcon Chemicals Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 62B, Braunfeld Row, 1 St Floor Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700027, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach8021M Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subrata Aich, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated

Arumugam Navaneethan, Ariyalur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Perambalur

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

ITA 2479/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 143(3)

filed his return of income on 16.05.2017 for AY 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.3,69,317/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason “Large cash deposits in bank account(s)” made by the assessee u/s.143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer

Kesiki Investment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 5867/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C Jadhav a/w Shri TarangFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

filed its return of income on 28/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 38,064/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny of the following: 3 Kesiki Investments Private Limited i) Large Amount of sundry creditors; ii) Large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover

Ronil Vinubhai Gujarati, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 222/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsiex Stil ./Ita No. 222/Srt/2025 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ronil Vinubhai Gujarati Income Tax Officer, 3, Shanti Van Society, Near Dabholi | Garq_ | Ward-3(2)(3), Surat, Aayakar Char Rasta, Katargam, Surat-395 Vs Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. 004 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 [Pan : Auapg 1447 K]

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

case that assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,09,620/-. Subsequently, case was selected for limited scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 30.08.2018. There were four notices issued by AO non compliance on the part of assessee. Thereafter

Paila Venkata Padmavathi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Vs. Paila Venkata Padmavathi The Income Tax Officer Ward– 5(3) 3-47, Thanam Aayakar Bhavan Paravada Mandal Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam Paravada – 531021 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bsipp1954P]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 282(1)

income of Rs.2,74.340/-. The return was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 24.10.2016. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Large cash deposits in savings bank account”. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.08.2017 was issued