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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Krishna Nrsing Home, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 768/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

partnership firm and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 10.05.2017 declaring income of Rs.2,52,580/-. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act for verification of ‘cash in hand’ shown in the return

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

declaring income of Rs.4,83,290/- and also claiming exempt Agricultural Income at Rs.53,02,491/-. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny on the issue of Agricultural Income followed by validly issue of statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee furnished ... carry out the Agricultural activities by growing crops like Sugarcane, Jawar, Soyabean, Barley, Groundnut and Vegetables etc. Case of the assessee selected for Limited Scrutiny for examining the issue of Agricultural income. Ld. AO has raised various queries with regard to the Agricultural income wherein Agricultural Receipts were shown

Vedic Foundation Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4975/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4975/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vedic Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 43-B, First Floor, Mig Flat, Ward-26(2), Pocket-B Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci8590C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panchkula’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1077029340(1) Dated 13.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

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

upheld in the lower appellate proceedings, it emerges at the outset that it was a case of 2 Vedic Foundation Pvt. Ltd. “limited” scrutiny on the basis of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and investment/advance/loans”. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s instant sole substantive ... Revenue’s vehement contentions. I am of the considered view that once the impugned issue of unexplained investment nowhere formed subject matter of “limited” scrutiny exercise herein, both the learned lower authorities could not have added it in light of PCIT Vs. Weilburger Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com

Saroj Kumar Dash, Debagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 151/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.141/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.151/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Saroj Kumar Dash Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Guru Sahi, Deogarh Road, Debgarh 768108 Pan No. : Agjpd 7675 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 271A

assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessment of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in regard to large cash deposited in the bank account during the year. It was the submission that the said issue was examined ... been recorded in the books of accounts. It was the submission that this was not an issue which is a part of limited scrutiny nor was it an issue connected with the limited scrutiny and no approval from the concerned Pr.CIT had been taken. It was the submission that

Saroj Kumar Dash, Deogarh vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 271A

Rahul Arunkumar Pandit, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Pune

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

ITA 1926/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1926/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rahul Arunkumar Pandit, Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Pune. Flat No.-5, Gopadma No.39, Plot No.18, Prabhat Road, Lane No.9, Pune- 411004. Pan : Abypp1142R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manishkumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Ld. Jcit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessed Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 55,36,400/-. The Additions Made Without Considering The Fact Of The Case Are Illegal & Unsustainable In Law & The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2] The Ld. Jcit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Case Ex-Parte Without Waiting For Appellant To Furnish The Submission & Evidences. The Ld. Jcit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Appellant Could Not Respond To The Notices, As He Has Changed His

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manishkumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 57

also in receipt of income from house property and income from other sources i.e. interest from the parties. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of large deduction claimed u/s 57 of the IT Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee has 3 claimed

Devendra Kumar, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward (3)(5), Najibabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4778/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devendra Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Sarkara Chakrajmal, Ward-(3)(5), Dhampur, Bijnor, U.P.-246761 Income Tax Officer, Najibabad, U.P.-246731 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bpppk0759H Assessee By: Sh. Pankaj Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ahmedabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1069778857(1) Dated 18.10.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

framed on 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings, it emerges at the outset that it was a case of 2 Devendra Kumar “limited” scrutiny to examine his cash deposits only which ended in estimation of his profits in issue. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration ... Revenue’s vehement contentions. I am of the considered view that once the impugned issue of presumptive business income nowhere formed subject matter of “limited” scrutiny exercise herein, both the learned lower authorities could not have added it in light of PCIT Vs. Weilburger Coatings India

Krishana Shanwal, Hisar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmankrishana Shanwal, Vs. Dcit, Hisar Circle, House No.155, Sector 15A, Hisar. Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Btops9929Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kuldip Khera, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Order : 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit (A), Agra [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.08.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.52,49,050/- For The Ay 2017-18. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Following Issues :-

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 56Section 57Section 89Section 89(1)

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following issues :- 2 The assessee has claimed substantial relief u/s 89. (ii) Salary income shown in ITR is less than the salary

Sneh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-32(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 54F

income on 02.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs.77,98,430/- for the AY 2016-17. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for 2 the reasons – (a) large investment in property (Form 26QB) as compared to total income and (b) large investment in property ... mandate with the AO in the current assessment year, however he proceeded to verify the same in the proceedings initiated with the mandate of limited scrutiny. Since he has expanded the mandate of verifications, the AO should have converted the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. There is no record available

Subbarao Jaladi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 296/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Subbarao Jaladi V. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(1) Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 3-34 Pasumarru Village Chilakuluripet Mandal Guntur District Chilakaluripet – 522616 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Actpj9648L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

filed his return of income on 28.09.2018, declaring the total income of Rs.5,04,980/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of cash deposits. Accordingly, Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 296/VIZ/2025 Subbarao Jaladi statutory notices under section

Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 278/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office #7-155 Aayakar Bhavan Kadiyapulanka Village Veerabhadrapuram Kadiyam Mandal Kambala Cheruvu East Godavari District-533126 Rajahmundry-533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aenpn2596K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

income of Rs.NIL. After claiming the net agricultural income of Rs.22,26,289/- as exempt. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In order

Yash Infratech, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

ITA 513/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Yash Infratech V. The Acit A-78, Indira Nagar Range 1 Lucknow (U.P) Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabfy1381R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

under consideration was filed by the assessee on 27.09.2015, declaring a loss of Rs.27,78,683/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee calling for details of transactions entered into by the assessee. The assessee ... addition of Rs.27,34,800/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for which the case of the assesse was selected for scrutiny assessment and on a due ITA No.513/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 11 consideration

Fehmida Begum, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 501/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, SR-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

notices under section 142(1) of the Act were never served. The other objection of the assessee is that the case was selected for limited scrutiny confined only to demonetisation cash deposits. However, the Ld. AO erred in making the assessment covering the issue beyond demonetisation period. Accordingly ... liable to be quashed on the legal ground. ITA No.501/Hyd/2025 6 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order nowhere mentions limited scrutiny and the Ld. AO was within his jurisdiction to examine the entire deposits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material

Usha Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

original return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 24-03-2018 declaring income of Rs. 14590/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for the reason 'High Risk Transactions and Cash deposit during demonetization period’. As per information available on record with ... income of Rs 14,590/- With ITO, Ward 41(1) Delhi (Pg no. 5) Case of assessee for AY 2017-18 was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposit during demonetization period and ultimately made addition of Rs 70 lakhs being cash deposited by the assessee during demonetization period

Dhanya Kumar Jain, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 173/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Dhanya Kumar Jain V. Ito Ward-2(1) 2719, Nagpur Road, Garha, Income Tax Office, Annexe Tripuri Chowk, Jabalpur- Building, Nagrath Chowk, 482001. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Awdpj1526D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

through electronic mode on 04.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2,50,539/- and agriculture income of Rs.10,65,180/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Accordingly, a statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was issued

Shri Pandmavati Minority Mahila Multi Co-Operative Society, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 236/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.236/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Shri.Pandmavati Minority Vs. I T O, Mahila Multi Cooperative National E Assessment Society Limited, Centre, At & Post Shamanewadi, Delhi. Tq Chikodi, Belagavi-591214, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aagts2171N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 270A

total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.25,24,281/- u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under E-assessment scheme to verify – investments/advances/loans and deduction from total income under chapter VIA. The A.O issued notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec

Surekha Vishnu Phadke, Vasco vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Panaji

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

ITA 228/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 5.08.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,43,680/-. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire are issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information

Mohammad Parvez, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.501/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mohammad Parvez Alam House No.197, Muram Khadan Road, Farid Nagar, Supela, Bhilai- 490 023 Pan: Agbpa5940L

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 68

time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny with a subject of verifying “cash deposit during the year”. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that after due enquiry, the A.O was satisfied regarding ... cash deposits during the year. The Ld. Counsel submitted that as the A.O had exceeded his jurisdiction beyond the scope and subject of limited scrutiny pertained to the cash deposits during the year without any order from the competent authority, therefore, addition made by the A.O is liable

Dinesh Kumar Tak, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Beawar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 981/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

There after the assessee has revised his return of income on 28.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,90,570/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and thereby the statutory notices as require were issued to the assessee and were served upon him. The assessee is proprietor ... Assessee also received rental income, income from shares trading business and bank interest, during the year under consideration. Selection of the case was for limited scrutiny and following issues were flagged for verification; I. Whether sales turnover /receipts has been correctly offered for tax. II. Whether the investment and income

Umang Boards Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 969/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Challenging Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19. Said Appeal Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing That Despite Issuance Of Notices U/S 250 Of The Act, There Was No Participation In The Appellate Proceedings By The Appellant & The Appeal Deserved To Be Dismissed In View Of The Material On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36

because of AIR Information under CASS and the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power