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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Gopalakrishnan Pukalakkat Balakrishnan, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner, Non Corp Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 295/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Sherry S Oommen

Section 143(3)Section 57

that the assessee is an individual and he filed his return of income on 05/08/2016. Thereafter, the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of the following issues: a) Large deduction claimed u/s. 57 and b) Low capital gains with respect to sale consideration 3. The assessee ... added to the cost of acquisition of the properties. The Ld.AR also made a legal submission that the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny but the AO had made the complete scrutiny without getting any prior approval from the competent authorities and therefore submitted that the entire proceedings

Jai Prakash Narayan Sharma, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 807/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

Page 1 of 13 Jai Prakash Narayan Sharma ITA No. 807/Ind/2024 - AY 2016-17 22,60,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued which were complied with by assessee. In the return of income filed to department, the assessee declared

Natarajan Thangavel, Tiruppur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 967/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:967/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natarajan Thangavel, The Income Tax Officer, 3/19, Kottamangalam Post, Vs. Ward -2(4), Vellampalayam, Tirupur. Udumalpet – 642 201. [Pan:Afzpt-0315-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. S. Sankar Ganesh, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, Jcit

For Appellant: Dr. S. Sankar Ganesh, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, JCIT

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

along with the agriculture income of Rs.3,50,000/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and later selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposit. During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.18

Vgn Infra India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 573/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 573/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar & Shri. I. Dinesh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.13,03,28,701/-. Later, a revised return of income declaring total loss of Rs.18,65,40,072/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee by official email. The AO mentioned

Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

Jurisdictional Tribunal wherein it is held that Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the issues on which assessment has been taken up for limited scrutiny. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer does not have power to go beyond the issues on which he has taken up case for scrutiny, then obviously ... Yuvaraj v. ITO (ITA No.1722/CHNY/2019) and Subbunadar Chandrasekar v. ITO (ITA No.612/CHNY/2021) have reiterated the principle that when assessment is initiated for a limited scrutiny or reassessment, the AO cannot travel beyond the specific issue(s) for which the case was reopened, unless such scope is expressly expanded. Consequently

Shri Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Baraiya, Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Circle- 4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad

ITA 685/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.685/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Bariya, Vs. Dcit Circle -4(1) (1), B M & Co, Old Vegetable Market, Aaykar Bhavan, Vejalpur, Surendranagar - 363001 Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anspb1144R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Rachna Khandhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05 / 05 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 / 07 /2025

For Appellant: Rachna Khandhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

record. Assessee produced required details for verification which were verified during the course of assessment proceedings. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny on issue of [1] Large deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. In view of the above facts as narrated above, the assessee was asked

Ma Chimanraoji Kadam Gr Bigar Seti Sah Path Mar Saswad, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2494/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

income in the return e-filed on 29.12.2020 after claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act at Rs. 2,905/-. Case selected for limited scrutiny. Even though valid statutory notices were issued assessee failed to respond resulting into the best judgment assessment wherein Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income

Sravan Kumar Ratakonda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 398/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.08.2018, declaring total income of Rs.17,15,270/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 10.08.2018 was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer

K Mordani Constructions Private Limited (Formerly Known As K Mordani Constructions LLP), Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1737/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1737/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) K Mordani Constructions V/S. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (Formerly बिाम Assistant Commissioner Of Known As K Mordani Income Tax/Income-Tax Constructions Llp) Officer, National E- Office No. 105, 1St Floor, Assessment Centre, Delhi, Amore Commercial Dcit22(1) Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Mumbai Junction Of 2Nd & 4Th Road Khar (West), Mumbai -400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfk2128G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh A/W Shri Akshay Pawar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

that the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs. 13,40,820/- on 25.03.2019 for A.Y. 2018-19. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 7217205/- vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 16.04.2021 after making addition

Aavishkar Oral Strips Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud, C.A

Section 115JSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

Nill and book profit of Rs.59,151/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the large share premium received during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17. During the year, the assessee received Rs.1

Bindu Kumar, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(1), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

section 143(3) of the Act. The grounds of appeal cum statement of facts are as under: - “1. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny under the reason cash deposit during the year, as this was the year of demonetization. For the purpose of limited scrutiny, the assessing ... considering these facts.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2017-18 was selected for limited scrutiny, for the reasons, “cash deposited during the year”. Notices were issued by the ld. AO, but he records that the assessee only submitted part

Kandasamy Rajendran, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Salem

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 712/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:712/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kandasamy Rajendran, Ito, 80-H6 Behind S.P.Bungalow, Vs. Ward 1 (1), Kambar Street, Salem. Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan:Ahhpr-9653-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Goutami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Goutami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 69A

declaring income of Rs.5,33,000/- (Pension of Rs.3,33,002/- and Other Sources of Rs.2,04,530/-). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposit during demonetisation period of Rs.10,98,500/-. Accordingly, the statutory notices were issued to the assessee

Integra Automation Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. Corporate Circle 1(1) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 1091/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1091/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Integra Automation Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Sf 238, Kurunallipalayam Income Tax, Village, Kinathukadavu, Negamam S.O. Corporate Circle 1(1), Emmegoundenpalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 642 120. [Pan:Aaaci7412H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Sivaraman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri B. Sivaraman, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

return of income for the AY 2018-19 declaring income of ₹.9,46,86,290/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, expenditure of personal nature and duty drawback. Against statutory notices

Sincerely Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8728/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 68

each other.” 3. Facts of the case may be concisely described as that the assessee company for A.Y. 2016-17 was selected in limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, dated 30.08.2017 was generated and issued to the assessee company. The assessee company

M/S. Vani Systems Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(4), Lucknow

ITA 646/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)

aside/quashed. 1 M/s Vani Systems Private Limited A.Y. 2016-17 3. Because the case was selected for the purposes of limited scrutiny and no addition/ variation has been made in the assessment as mentioned for the purpose of limited scrutiny the assessment order passed making other additions/ variations ... that the assessee filed a return of income on 30.08.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.18,36,330/-. The case was taken up for limited scrutiny for examination of whether deduction claimed on account of depreciation was admissible and whether funds received in the form of share premium were from

Hitendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Ward 3(1)(5), Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 2033/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblehitendrakumar Thakorbhai Income Tax Officer, Vs. Patel, Ward-3(1)(5), Darwaja Khadki, Vadodara. At Simli, Post Simli Talkarjan, Vadodara-391244. [Pan :Arupp0754 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krutarth K Desai, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth K Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 69A

grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny assessment in order to verify the nature and source of cash deposit made during demonetization period. During the process, it was noticed that

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mahak Industries Private Limited, Delhi

In the result the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 661/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.4,710/- and book profit was declared at Rs.9,930/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for the following reasons: i. low income in comparison to high loans / advances / investment in shares, ii. Large increase in Sundry Creditors with respect ... invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with the mandatory CBDT instructions/guidelines in relation to the cases selected under limited scrutiny. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in invoking provisions

Karam Vir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2605/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

assessee is in appeal before us. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and further he submitted that assessee had received compensation of Rs.2,94,34,541/- and claimed the same as exempt

Arjun Rishi, Sainik Farms vs. ITO Ward 28(1), ITO Office Civic Centre

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

ITA 3020/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanarjun Rishi, Vs. Ito, Ward 28 (1), F – 79/18, Sainik Farms, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Agvpr4625D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 01.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. I) That The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,173/- Made By Ld. Ao Ward 28(1) Delhi Is Illegal, Unjust, Opposed To Facts & Suffers From The Vice Of Arbitrariness. Ii) That All Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

That the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AD have both grossly erred in ignoring the cash book filed and accepted during AY 2016-17 - limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits. iv) That the inadvertent typing error in providing the information in the ITR for the first time

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Sanjay Laddha, Indore

ITA 658/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

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

stamps vending activity. The assessee submitted audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine "Large cash deposits in bank accounts during the year". The AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied