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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Keremane Thimmappaiah Ramprasad, K.T. Ramaprasad M/S. Supreme Bajaj, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Keremane Thimmappaiah Ramprasad, Vs. Ito, K.T. Ramaprasad M/S. Supreme Bajaj, Ward – 1& Tps, Shankar Mutt Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201, Karnataka. Pan : Amqpr 2967 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 08.02.2017 declaring income of Rs.4,70,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the cash deposits have been made from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 170/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

addition on issue other than the issue mentioned in the notice u/s 143(2) where the case of the assessee has been selected for limited scrutiny. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Panoli, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1(1), Bharuch, Gujarat

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

ITA 1232/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Vs. Ito, 107, Panoli Travels, Station Road, Ward – 1(1), Panoli, Bharuch – 394115 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akepn7411Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Vidhi Pandya, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

assessee filed his return of income on 12.01.2019 for AY 2018-19, declaring total income of Rs.4,01,570/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify “Credit Card Payment”. Various notices u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) were issued and served upon the assessee calling

Mohammad Naushad, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 900/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering the contention of the assessee stated in the affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 44A

during the course of hearing submitted that the assessee is an individual and the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large cash deposited in his savings bank account. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had total deposits of nearly Rs.1

Manish Ray & Co., Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 1545/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu & Ms. Paramita BasuFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

labour contractors and TDS has 6 also been deducted. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment of the assessee had been taken up for limited scrutiny purpose regarding excess contribution to PF, superannuation fund and gratuity fund. The Assessing Officer disallowed the remuneration to the partners as also disallowed

Chandra Panneerselvam, Vellore vs. PCIT., Chennai

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

ITA 91/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Chandra Pannerselvam, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.2/2, Old Munsif Court Street, Tax, Saidapet, Vellure, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu - 632 012. Vellore. [Pan: Aahpp9253B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

order dated 27.03.2021 of PCIT, Chennai. Return declared income of Rs.20,04,090/- was filed on 18.11.2015. The assessee was originally selected for limited scrutiny and subsequently converted to complete scrutiny. The Ld.AO determined Page - 2 - of 8 total income at Rs.73,54,900/- vide order dated

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7226/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

earning income from other sources. She filed her return of income on 13.03.2018 reporting total income at Rs.57,99,540/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposit. Explanations were called for in respect of which assessee made her submissions on the ITBA portal

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7225/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

earning income from other sources. She filed her return of income on 13.03.2018 reporting total income at Rs.57,99,540/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposit. Explanations were called for in respect of which assessee made her submissions on the ITBA portal

Laveena Jain, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income of Rs. 2,63,579/- has been shown under the head "Income from other Sources" The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 11.8.2018 in which the reason for selection was also mentioned as under

Kusum Sahgal, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), Delhi

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

filed return of income on 28.07.2016 showing income of Rs.66,14,65,660/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for limited scrutiny with reasons (i) Large long term capital gains (Schedule CG of ITR); (ii) Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D,54G, 54GA (Schedule

Anand Prakash Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3537/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Prakash Singh, Vs. Acit, 4-27 A Site-4, Circle-2, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201005. Pan: Bbzps5472F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

fabric The appellant has filed its return of on 15/10/2016 declaring income of Rs. 16,38,670/-. Later, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine source of investment of capital introduced by proprietor and booking 3 BHK flat with Prateek Realtor at Ghaziabad. The case

M/S. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Manmohan Dasassessment Year: 2017-18 Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd……................……….……Appellant A-4, R G Baruah Road, Ambikagiri Nagar, Guwahati, Assam-781024. [Pan: Aacca4720A] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Guwahati.………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Amalan Bhadra, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Jha, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 27.02.2020 For The Ay 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Raised Legal Issue Challenged The Assessment Framed Based On Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Of The Act Which Is Not In Accordance With Instruction No. F. No. 225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23- 06-2017, Issued By The Cbdt.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd, Jalgoan vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2012/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: PendingITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1, Jalgaon E 2/1, Midc Area, Ahjantha Vs. Road, Jalgaon – 425003 Pan: Aadcp9598E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anchaliya Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Issue: “Whether Unsecured Loans Are Genuine & From Disclosed Sources.”

For Appellant: Shri Suresh AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the following issue: “Whether unsecured loans are genuine and from disclosed sources.” 3. Accordingly statutory notices

Swaroop Agrochemical Industries, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar,<br>Addl.CIT<br>–DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Income of Rs.1,32,70,176/- declared in the return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 e-filed on 27/10/2018. Case selected for limited scrutiny for examining the "duty drawback" and "business expenses". Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee

Radhanagar Cold Stores Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 777/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 777/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Radhanagar Cold Stores Pvt. Limited,...……Appellant 161, Rajakatra Building, 1St Floor, Netaji Subha Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcr5647N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Palash Chttopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

Private Limited Company, which filed its return of income on 09.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.39,89,130/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify the issue of payment of bonus/commission paid to the employees. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer noted

Gmedapadu Pacs, East Godavari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 573/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Gmedapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 10/02/2021 For Ay 2018-19. The Assessee Society Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Ao On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80P

claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act of Rs. 84,01,394/-). 3. Thereafter, the case of the assessee society was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying its claim for deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A. 4. The AO, vide his order passed under section ... view of material available on record, no addition on the subject issue for which the case of the assessee society was selected for “limited scrutiny” was being made, but the at the same time observed that the assessment of income was being done as per the “computation sheet

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, Solan vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath (Advocate)(Virtual) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 43B

delay fall within lockdown situation rising out of Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the case was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny vide assessment order dated 01-02-2021 wherein Ld. AO did not make any further additions. 2. Keeping in mind the factual matrix

Ravi Kumar Anitha Devi, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2410/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mrs. T. Sandhyaarti, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 68

information with the department, the assessee made substantial cash deposits in the bank accounts during the year and hence the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued accordingly. In response to the notice, the assessee replied through e-proceedings attaching the bank statement

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan vs. Jaikumar Amarlalphagwani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6729/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Ward Jaikumar 2(2) Kalyan Amarlalphagwani Income Tax Office Mohan Plaza Flat No. 703, 7Th Floor, Wayale Nagar Vs. Milan Palace A Wing Khemani, Nr Ruhani Satsang Hall Ulhasnagar, Mumbai- 421002 Pan: Amnpp8597Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija A/W Ms. Manisha Ghind Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija a/wFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.D.R
Section 250Section 46A(3)

total income at Rs.22,31,440/- by filing return of income for the AY under consideration on dated 27.09.2018, which was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS on the following ground: 2 Jaikumar Amarlal Phagwani “Investment in immovable property” 3. The AO accordingly, issued statutory notices to the Assessee

Jayashree Sanjay Jadhav, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 42 (2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the said terms

ITA 5660/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Jayashree Sanjay Acit, Circle 42(2)(3), Jadhav, Kautalya Bhavan, Bandra H 11/703, Palm Acres Chs Ltd. Vs. Kurla Complex, Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400022. Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adgpj9973J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anant Pai, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. Admittedly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Following Issues: (I) Cash Deposit In The Bank Account During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016. (Ii) Transactions Made In Immovable Property & (Iii) Investment Of Rs.1,50,000/- U/S 80C.

For Appellant: Shri Anant Pai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

authorities below were empowered to examine the cash deposits made during the period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 only, as the case was selected for limited scrutiny of the issues mentioned above and was not converted complete scrutiny. However, the AO still made the addition of Rs.15,04,500/- by considering