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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Seven Energies Odisha Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle 3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1518/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1518/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Seven Energies Odisha Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aatcs5759E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 07/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 69

learned CIT (Appeals)/NFAC erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer when the assessment was initially selected for "limited scrutiny" to verify contract receipts, sales turnover and deduction claimed on account of interest expenditure but the Assessing Officer, without any change in the scope of scrutiny ... Seven Energies Odisha Limited vs. ACIT proceeded to make arbitrary additions referable to alleged unexplained investments, which are beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals)/NFAC erred in relying upon several factors and arguments, such as the Appellant's business activity, financial capacity, and inter-company

Raghu Ram Reddy Padoori, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1185/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Raghu Ram Reddy Padoori, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Agtpp8984D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 24/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

income for the AY 2017-18 on 13/12/2017 declaring an income of Rs.15,89,860/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify “large cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year”. Thereafter, a notice under section

Linkpoint Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1477/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(2)

filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 showing a total loss of ₹(-) 5,96,60,689/-. The case was selected for a limited scrutiny for the reason business loss under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Ambikesh Kumar Singh, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Singrauli

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

ITA 70/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Ambikesh Kumar Singh V. The Ito – Ward Singrauli Marition School, Ke Samne Singrauli-486886. South Karaundiya Sidhi - 486661. Pan:Dzaps6741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gagan Tiwari, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Narendra Mulai Prasad, Jc-1 Date Of Hearing: 09 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Mulai Prasad, JC-1

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

information regarding the cash deposits amounting to Rs.57,40,900/- made in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was issued to the assessee but there was no compliance

Srilakshmi Devireddy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

under section 139(4) of the Act, declaring an income of Rs. 3,12,000/- Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” to verify the “Large value cash deposits during the demonetization period as compared to the returned income”. 3. During the course of the assessment

Mahendra Parshottamdas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2068/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 250

appellant filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 12.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,50,480/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “whether cash in hand shown in the return of income is correct.” During the assessment proceedings, the appellant

Shiv Ratan Education Society, Haridwar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 9

audit report prescribed for charitable or religious trusts or institutions. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason ‘large claim of depreciation for trust - whether asset itself has been claimed as application of income’. During the course of assessment proceedings in terms of reply dated

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

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

assessment proceedings u/s 143 which has been passed on the underlying reason for selection of case which is well within the scope of limited scrutiny being 'Large cash deposits compared to returned income. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) was justified ... total income of the assessee which is based on underlying reason for selection of case which is well within the scope of limited scrutiny being 'Large cash deposits compared to returned income. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) was justified

Nimmagadda Gopichand, Vijayawada vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

ITA 743/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 03.08.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 15,85,570/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny”. 3. Thereafter, the AO framed the assessment vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 17.12.2019, wherein, after making an addition

Shivani Enterprises, Pune vs. ITO Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1871/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1871/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shivani Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Western India House 587, Ward-14(1), Pune 588, Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Acffs4711D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Fabric sales. Income of Rs.17,32,968/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2018- 19. After the case being taken up for Limited Scrutiny, ld. Assessing Officer based on the observation of the Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit report noted that a sum of Rs.12

Swaraj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Bhardwaj, Advocate &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

assessee is engaged in the business of in retail as well as wholesale sale of Mobile Cards. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of cash deposits during the demonization period. Accordingly, statutory notices under section

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

Rs.1,60,030/- after claiming deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.1,39,56,334/- Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has issued notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act calling for the details

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 80P(2)(a)

The Orchid Harmony Co Operative Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

operative housing service society filed a Nil return of income on 10.10.2020 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and the AO observed that the appellant has received Rs. 28,90,367/- as interest on deposits and also debited Township Maintenance expenses

The Orchid Harmony Co Operative Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1259/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

Ashoke Sen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3021/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ashoke Sen Ito, Ward 50(1) Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Bentick Street, Unit-A, B &C, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 700054, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ayfps8468K Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

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

been provided that w.e.f. 23.06.2017, the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to be issued in any of the three following forms :- ❖ Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection ❖ Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) ❖ Compulsory Manual Scrutiny 6. The ld. AR submitted that the notice is not bearing

L.R. Agro Product Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2679/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xiv)Section 250Section 68

Rs.86,90,575/- although the appellant has established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. 6. That, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of business loss and so the additions made in the assessment order u/s 68 of the Act is without jurisdiction

Shamima Haseenathul, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 54ESection 54FSection 68

income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 27.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.7,86,00,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify deductions and exemptions claimed against capital gains. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee was a shareholder ... filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 27.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,86,00,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the deductions/exemptions claimed from capital gains. During assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee was a shareholder

Mandeep Kaur, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Fatehabad

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 630/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.630/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Mandeep Kaur Ito Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Museh Ali Hizrawan, Khurd, To Fatehabad Rohtak - 124001 Fatehabad, Haryana – 125050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Datpk-9813-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 17-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144Of The Act On30-04-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Urged Legal Ground No.4 To Assail The Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao. In This Ground Of Appeal, It Has Been Pleaded That The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) As Well As Issue Of Notice U/S 148

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

under. 3. From the case records, it emerges that the assessee filed return ofincome on 27-09-2016 which was subjected to limited scrutiny wherein the return of income was accepted vide order dated 15-11- 2018. Subsequently, forming an opinion of escapement of income, a 3 Assessment Year

Raju Lekharaj Tanwani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2709/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2709/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Lekhraj Tanwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4Th Floor, Near Vasant Bhawan, Circle-1,Aurangabad Arihant Apartment, Machhali Khadak, Aurangabad -431 001 Maharashtra Pan : Abwpt0845K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang

Section 143(3)Section 250

rival contentions and pursued the record placed before me. Assessee is an individual and in the assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 carried out under limited scrutiny depreciation at Rs.6,96,160/- has been disallowed against which the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to appear on the given