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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Aslam Kassam Merchant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Aslam Kassam Merchant, Income Tax Officer, 85, Ground Floor, Ward-20(1)(2), Victoria Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mustafa Bazar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan : Aefpm5272D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pravin B. Shetty For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 26-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) guidelines. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon

Rajeev Surana, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4196/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Rajeev Surana, Income Tax Officer, Ward 201 Shamiana 67F, Walkeshwar 19(3)(1), Room No. 202, Road, Walkeswar, Matrummandir Tardeo, V Mumbai-400006, Maharashtra Mumbai-400007, S Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Aditya SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Shankheswar 3 Rajeev Surana vs ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai Enterprises. The case of assessee for assessment year 2018-19 was selected for limited scrutiny under e-assessment scheme 2018. To examine the issue “Share capital / other capital”. Statutory notices

Relationship Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2067/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Relationship Properties Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), 41-44, Sp Centre, Minoo V Mumbai Desai Marg, Colaba, S Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. Aadcr8947D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

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

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under: “1. The assessment order passed in violation of the procedure for limited scrutiny 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income ... learned DCIT') is void ab initio, being based on limited scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), issued without complying with the procedure laid by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in this regard. 2. Addition to revenue

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

consideration u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on 11.09.2015, declaring NIL income. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny and the AO, during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) examined the allotment of shares at the premium and ultimately accepted the ROI vide

Sahkari Karya Sanstha Shiksha Vibhag Indoor, Indore vs. ITO-4(3), Indore

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

ITA 348/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshisahkari Sanstha Shiksha Income Tax Officer 4(3), Vibhag, Indore 89, Nagar Nigam Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas8639M Assessee By Shri Jayant Jain, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parpar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For A.Y.2018-19 Which Is Arising From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 02.03.2021 Framed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Issues On Merits Against The Addition

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

observe that the assessee is a co-operative society and after the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2018-19 selected for limited scrutiny the Ld. A.O has disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs.28,39,082/- by observing that interest

Dhanlaxmi Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

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

ITA 1024/PUN/2025[1024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Payal Rathi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

Persons (AOP) and filed its return of income on 15/10/2020 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify the following items:- “a) Assessee has disclosed substantial amount of investments/advances /loans in the asset side of Balance Sheet ... read with section 144B of the Act dated 20/09/2022 that the FAO has mentioned that the case was selected for scrutiny under the 'Limited Scrutiny' category through CASS. Whereas it is clear from the notice under section 143(2) of the Act through which the case has been selected

Sun Ark Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2071/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Sun Ark Aluminium Income Tax Officer, Industries Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle, No.22, Chairman A, Madurai. Shanmugam Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Aalcs3262Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit.

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. The original assessment having been carried out for a limited scrutiny, PCIT ought to have seen that the AO has completed the limited scrutiny and the PCIT ought not to have held the assessment to be erroneous invoking jurisdiction ... which stood revised on 25.03.2019 declaring total loss of Rs.3,20,43,623/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme 2018 vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2019 for examining the following issues:- 1). Exports / Imports 2). Duty

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Bench in para 7 to 18 of the order are as under: “7. We find that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 were initiated vide notice ... dated 27.07.2016 as is also mentioned in the Assessment Order and reproduced in the impugned order u/s 263. 8. The points taken up for limited scrutiny are, 1) low income in comparison to high loan advances, investment in shares, 2) low income in comparison very high investment & 3) large increase

Kishna Gears Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2885/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Income Tax Act, dated 26.12.2018, by wrongly exercising jurisdiction and making additions on issues other than those identified for examination for Limited Scrutiny. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1

Hanumanthappa Rajappa Mohan, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chitradurga

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

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

income of Rs.2,72,78. The assessee is a grocery merchant and also a commission agent for agricultural produces. Return was picked up for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposit and therefore notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.6.2017. The assessee was found to have

M/S. Primary Agriculture Credit Co-Op Society, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 1826/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rs.Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued for limited scrutiny. The purpose of scrutiny was high creditors and liability and also deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. When assessee was questioned, assessee submitted its byelaws, nature of business ... made an addition of Rs.91,130 which is disallowance of capital expenditure. No addition was made with respect to the limited scrutiny notice and total income of assessee was assessed at Rs.91,130 by assessment order dated 19.9.2022. 4. Subsequently a rectification order u/s. 154 r.w.s

Hivtap Nirmulan Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 571/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehivtap Nirmulan Karmachari, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit T.B. Karyalayapandharkawada Road, ……………. Appellant Yavatmal -445 001, Maharashtra. Pan–Aabah6751K V/S Income Tax Officer, ……………. Respondent Ward–1, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

21/10/2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the e–assessment scheme 2019 to verify the issues (i) investment, advance/loans and (ii) deduction from total income under Chapter–VIA. The assessing officer has issued

Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 1731/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 29A, Manthinapalli Vasal Street, Ward 1, Batlagundu Road, Begampur, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 002. [Pan:Acfpm9762L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short]. The case was subsequently selected for "Limited scrutiny" under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 05.07.2017 was issued. The reason for scrutiny selection is to verify

Ramesh Verma, Moradabad vs. ITO, 2(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalmr. Ramesh Verma, Income Tax Officer, Bhogpur Mithoni, Ward-2(1), Atal Mohalla, Mandi Chowk, Vs. Moradabad. Moradabad-244001 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Acvpv3651M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patawarai, Adv. Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 18.09.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Moradabad/20293/2019-20 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 14.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Return Of Income On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,72,820/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For Examination Of Cash Ramesh Verma Vs. Ito Deposits & Cash Withdrawals In The Bank Accounts. The Ao Has Observed That Assessee Is Maintaining Two Bank Accounts (I) With State Bank Of India & (Ii) With Prathma Bank. As Per The Ao, Total Cash Of Rs.71,12,000/- Were Deposited During The Year Which Were Alleged As Unexplained U/S 69A & Addition Was Made. In Addition To This, Further Addition Was Made On Account Of Other Deposit In Both The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(3)Section 69A

filed his return of income on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,72,820/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash Ramesh Verma vs. ITO deposits and cash withdrawals in the bank accounts. The AO has observed that assessee is maintaining ... upheld and the additions on account of other deposits in the banks was deleted by observing that the same is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal

Abdul Razaque, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed while ground nos

ITA 84/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Abdul Razaque, Vs. Acit, 903, Badi Omti, Jabalpur, M.P. Circle-2(1), Jabalpur Pan:Afgpr9967N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Jcit(A), Mysore, Wherein The Ld. Addl Jcit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 19.11.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)- Mysore Was Not Justified In Deciding The Legal Ground That Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine The Reasons Of (I) Return Filed After 7.11.2016' & Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period & Addition Was Made On Some Other Issue Which Was Not The Reason For Selection & Without Taking Any Approval From Higher Authorities. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)-Mysore Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,48,584 By Ignoring All The Evidences & Documents By Simply Observing That No New Documents Were Filed Even Though Documents Which Are Filed Are Sufficient & Self-Explanatory & The Order Of Learned Cit Appeals Is Passed In A Mechanical Manner, Without Any Application Of Mind & Appears That It Was Passed With Predetermined Mind.

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) ADDL/JADDL JCIT(A)- Mysore was not Justified in deciding the legal ground that case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the reasons of (i) Return filed after 7.11.2016' and cash deposit during demonetization period and addition was made on some other ... return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 11.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 47,06,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine; (i) Return filed after 7.11.2016 and (ii)cash deposit during demonetization period. The ld. AO records that statutory notices under section

Subhash Chand Choraria, Guwahati vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Guwahati

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

ITA 63/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

return of income on showing total income of ₹27,41,140/- primarily from house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), with the primary issue being the unexplained cash deposit of ₹37,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The Assessing

Thakorbhai Vasantbhai Patel, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)- Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1070/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1070/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Thakorbhai Vasantbhai Patel Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3) बनाम/ A-28, Punit Society, Near Bharuch, 1St Floor, Station Road, Vs. Civil Road, Bharuch-392 001 Near Panchwati Chowk, Bharuch- 356 069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akcpp 0669 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2025

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

total income at Rs.2,84,280/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI-A of Rs.10,000/-. The return of assessee was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ through CASS to verify the issue of ‘Cash deposited during demonetization period’. During the assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Lucknow vs. Shyam Sagar Yadav, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.445/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Lucknow V. Shyam Sagar Yadav 57, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 225, Jiamau, Hazratganj, Ram Teerath Marg, Narhi, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Bdkps3230A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Harshit Tahilramani, Aca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 16 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Tahilramani, ACAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 69A

declaring total income from business of Rs.4,05,800/- after deduction of Chapter VI of Rs.1,55,000/-. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny through CASS’ to examine cash deposited during the year. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer sought an explanation from the assessee. The explanation offered before the Assessing

Tarunaben Amitkumar Patel, Daman vs. ITO, Ward Daman, Daman

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

ITA 662/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 139Section 250

filed her Return of Income u/s 139 declaring a TOTAL INCOME of Rs 5,20,290/-. The case was selected notices were issued under "Limited Scrutiny" and accordingly. The notices by E_Mail were issued on the E_Mail ID as njjrathod2014@gmail.com. This id belongs to the Accountant

Bhaveshkumar Rajaram Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 62/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,29,460/-. Further, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 18.09.2017 and the same was duly served upon the assessee via email through ITBA