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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Amritsar

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

ITA 28/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 28/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Santokh Singh, H. No. 201, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Village Kot Kotgurbaksh, Amritsar. Amritsar, Punjab [Pan:-Emxps0241A] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 250Section 282

assessee is an agriculturist and has filed his return of income disclosing agricultural income of Rs.34.34 lakhs and the case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of agricultural income. However, in course of assessment proceedings, in absence of any response or any compliance to various notices issued

Ramanand Maurya, Ichauli, Barabanki, Up vs. ITO-5(5) Barabanki-2, Barabanki Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 19Section 253(3)Section 69A

assessee filed her return of income on 16/02/2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,68,360/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 06/12/2019 determining the total

Vibha Singh, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 19Section 253(3)Section 69A

assessee filed her return of income on 16/02/2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,68,360/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 06/12/2019 determining the total

Pune Cantonment Board Kamgar Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 2481/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 concluded on 08.02.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A ) & 143(3B) of the Act after the case being selected for Limited Scrutiny for examining the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) denied the claim u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by applying section

Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 293/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.293/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Palabhatla, Hyderabad Ward – 7 (1) Pan:Aiupp8507H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 04.05.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 571 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition & Affidavit Along With Copies Of Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR

income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.7,93,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were issued

Sangeeta Yadav, K V Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1506/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 08.11.2017, admitting total income of Rs.1,96,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and the assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), on 10.12.2019 and determined total income

Kirit Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1458/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kirit Kumar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(2) Pan:Aehpp6614E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Page 2 of 14 ITA No 1458 of 2025 Kirit Kumar Patel Rs.13,17,720/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in CASS and, accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

Rs.1,46,560/-, Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.15,33,315/- and income from other sources of Rs.15,344/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the claim of deduction / exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The assessee in the return of income had claimed exemption u/s.54B

Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1752/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1752/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, The Assistant Commissioner 286/2, 1St Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, S.G. Complex, Circle 1, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal. Namakkal – 637 001. Pan: Abnpt 2841G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

year 2016-17, assessee had filed his return of income on 07.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,50,610/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.07.2017. The reason for selection of assessment for :- 3 -: limited scrutiny was to examine

Mrs. Sisily Jose, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1637/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. V.P. Kuriyachan, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 69A

declared taxable income of Rs.4,08,815/- and exempt agricultural income of Rs.43,43,129/-. The assessment of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS on the issue of Agriculture Income. 5. The Assessing Officer, Faceless Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’), made ... taxable income of Rs.4,08,815/- along with the exempt agricultural income of Rs.43,43,129/-. The assessment of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS on the issue of Agriculture Income. The Assessing Officer, made an addition of agricultural income of Rs.39,81,121/- to the total

Abuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2712/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaabuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (3), Kh No.115, Village Alipur, Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Aacb5801K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Harshit Srivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 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 01.08.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 07.11.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,27,520/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass & Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Srivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.1,27,520/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) 2 along with ... along with registered deed in his order. After considering the above facts on record ld. CIT (A) observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the purpose of verifying the following issues :- (i) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income; (ii) Investment/Advances/Loans; and (iii) Investment in immovable

Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1720/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 250

declaring total income of Rs. 29,54,020/-. The case was Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– selected for limited scrutiny under the e-Assessment Scheme, 2019, to verify income from house property and securities. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee owned four immovable properties

Mr. Manish Holaram Ranglani, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Dhule Circle, Dhule

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 1738/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1738/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Manish Holaram Acit Dhule Circle Ranglani, Plot No. 84 Ganpati Nagar, Vs. Taloda Road, Nandurbar- 425412 Maharashtra Pan-Avapr7426G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

commodities. Return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18 e-filed on 26.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,30,740/- The case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposits during the year. Valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act duly served upon

Jeeva, Tirupur vs. ITO, Circle 1, Tirupur

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

ITA 2167/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2167/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

Proprietor of Jeeva Garments and has filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs.17,20,140/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify large cash deposits in the bank accounts during the year. The assessee explained the source of cash deposits through ... However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits in the bank account, and the assessee had duly explained the source of such deposits through the books

Bhavinbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, Surat vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 874/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 09.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs 2,51,460/-.The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for A.Y. 2017-18 for verification of cash deposits in bank a/c. The assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) and total income was assessed

Monika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251

return of Income on 07.01.2017 for the Asstt. Year 2016- 17 declaring total income of Rs.8,29,550/-. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny under the CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) issued on 19.09.2017. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act along with specific questionnaire ... website of Income Tax Department. The assessee, during the period under consideration, derived income from broadcasting service. The assessee submitted online reply related to limited scrutiny issues which were examined. The assessee was asked to submit to necessary documents and evidences for verification but the same has not been produced

Dilip Ramchandra Mohite, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, ITA No.1631/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA

ITA 1632/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1631 & 1632/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dilip Ramchandra Mohite, Vs. Acit, Kolhapur 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003 Maharashtra Pan : Abgpm8693Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Udol Raj Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

note that assessee is an individual and income of Rs.1,63,38,430/- declared in the return filed on 28.03.2019. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS and valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. Assessee has provided reply and ld. Assessing Officer made

Dilip Ramchandra Mohite, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, ITA No.1631/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA

ITA 1631/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1631 & 1632/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dilip Ramchandra Mohite, Vs. Acit, Kolhapur 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003 Maharashtra Pan : Abgpm8693Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Udol Raj Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

note that assessee is an individual and income of Rs.1,63,38,430/- declared in the return filed on 28.03.2019. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS and valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. Assessee has provided reply and ld. Assessing Officer made

Asis Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 588/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

there was difference in balance amount as per the balance sheet as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014. The return of income was initially selected for limited scrutiny but was subsequently taken up under complete scrutiny after obtaining the requisite approval. The Ld. AO treated the balance amount

Theeta Chowdayya Nagarathna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2083/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Kiran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 12.7.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.3,51,600/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine “cash deposit during demonetization period”. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act were issued calling