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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Siddiq Hussain Delvi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2374/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Phani Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R

Section 226(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 17/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs.11,27,810/-. The Assessee’s case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify the large cash deposits during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2) as well

Anita Garg, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4053/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4053/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Anita Garg Income Tax Officer, Hapur, Vs. Ward 2(3)(4), Santosh Garhi, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Jareeb Kirana Store, Teachers Colony, Near Kms School, Bulandshahar, Hapur, Rampura, Pilkhuwa, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaypg2767Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 119Section 143(2)

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee did not .specify whether it was a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specifically provided vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II

DCIT, Int.Tax.Circle, Gurgaon vs. Anil Kumar Goel, Gurugram

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

ITA 1103/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 68

Income was subsequently processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. Later the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS due to the reason “large balance in foreign bank account". Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act were issued and served upon

Mahadevi Yallingappa Dalavayi, Gokak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Gokak, Gokak

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

ITA 18/PAN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 18/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mahadevi Yallingappa Dalavayi Vs I T O Ward(1), H.No.191/3, Basavanagar, Dr Ghogeri Building, . Gokak-591307, Belgaum Road, Karnataka. Gokak-591307, Karnataka. Pan .No. Bwxpd2154E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 2.08.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,10,660/- and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS. The 2 ITA. No. 18/PAN 2025. Mahadevi Yallingappa Dalavayi. Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that

Super Prime Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 880/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253(6)(d)

declared in the return e-filed on 29.09.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings which was carried out under the limited scrutiny, it was found that the assessee is engaged in the Civil 3 Super Prime Construction Pvt. Ltd. Construction works on contractorship basis. Ld. AO while examining

Amar Brothers Global P.Ltd, Kanpur vs. AO Circle-1(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 175/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.175/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amar Brothers Global Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Circle-2(1)(1) 87/112, Kalpi Road, Kanpur- Vaibhav Bhawan, 802003. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaica6776A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 29 07 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 37

ICDS Compliance and Adjustment makes the assessment bad in law, the same be quashed. 2. Because the notice u/s 143(2) being issued for limited scrutiny and there being no approval obtained from the competent authority nor there being any order for converting the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny

Naresh Amarnath Barot, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Naresh Amarnath Barot Ito, Ward-3(3)(3) C/O. Neela J. Rao Vs. Ahmedabad. 5, Ratanadeep Bungalow Nr.Sun-In Step Club Thaltej Ahmedabad 380054. Pan : Aaxpb 0044 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 14.02.2025, Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The A.Y. 2017–18, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.19,59,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A On Account Of Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period As Per The Order Dated 09.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

return of income on 12.01.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,05,150/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,38,240/-. The 2 case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Cash deposits during demonetization period.” The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 143(2) and several notices

Kailashchandra Haumanprasad Sugla, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

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

ITA 1555/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1555/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kailashchandra Haumanprasad V The Income Tax Officer, Sugla, S Ward-1(1), Solapur. 45/15, Samrat Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Prabhakar Nagar H/S, Solapur-413001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahsps3244B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2017, although the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the point of purchase of property, however learned Assessing officer has made various other additions without converting the same into

Sukhbir Singh Bedi, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Gurdaspur G T Road Gurdaspur, G T Road Gurdaspur

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

ITA 591/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 591/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

whole proceedings are bad in the eyes of law. The AO was not justified in not appreciating that it was a case of limited scrutiny and the provisions of limited scrutiny were ignored and the whole assessment was converted into unlimited scrutiny which is bad in the eyes

Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi, Belagavi vs. PCIT Hubballi, Hubballi

ITA 103/PAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

primary grievance in the present appeal loops round the powers of revisionary authority to revise an assessment order passed in pursuance of limited scrutiny assessment as against complete scrutiny. 3. Briefly stated facts born out of case records and as solidified by the rival parties are that; the assessee ... revisionary proceedings with a cannonball point that ‘format of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO was meant for ‘limited scrutiny’. It was alleged before the Ld. PCIT that, by the very nature of limited scrutiny assessment, the Ld. AO dealt with issues exclusively raised

Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 485/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,…Appellant 6B, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcg2354D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-6(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

relevant assessment year was submitted on 22/09/2016 declaring a total income of Rs.1,97,828/-. The Appellant’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The issues mentioned in Notice u/s 143(2) contained 2 issues for verification. First issue was whether tax aspects related to investments/ advances/ loans

Tirupati Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 266/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 266/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Tirupati Cold Storage Pvt. Limited,.………Appellant 79, Sambhunath Pandit Street, Bhawanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aabct0126C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sheo Prakash Bhatter, Director, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessee-Company disclosed an amount of Rs.2,89,394/- in Form 3CD as employees bonus or commission. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment scheme, 2019. Statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter notices under section

Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1156/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1156/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan, Income Tax Officer, No.91/15, East Jones Road, Non-Corp Ward-19(2), Chennai-600 015. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpm1853P]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

claimed as exempt amounting to Rs.55,01,422/-. The Return of Income was processed u/s143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for "Limited Scrutiny" in order to verify the agricultural income earned by the assessee during the year. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 881/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

total income of Rs.47,81,638/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and case was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny through CASS and subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO observed that there

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1966/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

case was selected for 3 ITA No. 1965, 1966 & 1957/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sanghvi Realty Private Limited scrutiny. Accordingly notice u/s.143(2) along with notice u/s.143(1) issued to the assessee. The Ld.AO called for various submissions from assessee on the issues. The Ld.AO rejected the submission

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1965/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Sanghvi Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1957/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Syed Zahed Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Syed Zahed Ali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aifpa6433J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sumitha Parmata, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Syed Zahed Ali (“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 05.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sumitha Parmata, SR-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs.6,50,000/- under the head “income from other sources”. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the purpose of examining the sources of cash deposits, services fee received and cash withdrawals from bank. Accordingly, notice under section

Pingle Ranadhir Reddy, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

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

admitting total Income of 2 ITA.No.403/Hyd./2025 Rs.45,40,000/- under the Head “Other Sources”. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue i.e., 'Large value of cash deposited during demonetization period’. Notice u/sec.143(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [in short

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad vs. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1555/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1555/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit Vs. Shri Vedula Venkata Circle 9 (1) Ramana, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abhpv1213E (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2025 & 18/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Account with Bank of India. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that this issue of cash deposit was the subject matter of limited scrutiny selected under CASS and which is also part of the individual transaction statement (ITS) of the assessee. The only difference was that at the initial stage ... deposit in the Bank Account was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee therefore, the Assessing Officer decided to convert the limited scrutiny to Page 3 of 11 ITA No 1555 of 2017 VedITA No 1555 of 2017 Vedula Venkata Ramana complete scrutiny and sought the permission