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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Nitin Verma L/H of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rohtak

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

ITA 3530/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 48

issued for selecting scrutiny through CASS, the scope of assessment had to be confined to the issues raised in the reasons for selection of limited scrutiny and therefore, addition made beyond the scope of said reasons are perse without jurisdiction and untenable. 4. That without prejudice to the above ... that learned Income Tax Officer has converted assessment proceedings into full scrutiny without granting any opportunity to the appellant and therefore, the conversion of limited scrutiny into full scrutiny without any adequate notice is perse illegal and invalid. 4.1 That furthermore, the action of conversion of limited scrutiny into complete

Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Lamkana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 18/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 270ASection 80P

present appeal are that the assessee is a society and filed its return of income at Nil. Its case was taken up for limited scrutiny on the basis that “Deduction under Chapter VIA”. The AO noted that the society filed its return of income belatedly. Therefore, the penalty proceedings

Anil Kumar Jena, Kendrapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Kendrapara Ward, Kendrapara

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

ITA 212/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anil Kumar Jena Jena Vs. Ito, Ward, Kendrapara Ito, Ward, Kendrapara Kalapada, Sri Baladevjew Kalapada, Sri Baladevjew Kendrapara 754212 Kendrapara 754212 Pan/Gir No.Awgpj7420B Awgpj7420B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/202 /2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR

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

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 25.8.2017 admitting total income of Rs.6,06,400/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposits during the year and, accordingly, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. There

Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta, Rajkot vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 422/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

upholding the validity of disallowance of claim under section 54F of the Act, made by the Assessing officer which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny under CASS. ITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Dushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO (4) The assessee craves leave to add to, amend, alter ... processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, ‘the Act'). The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for limited scrutiny with reasons, namely: (i) Large deduction u/s. 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54A, (ii) Sale consideration of property in ITR is less then consideration reported

Satya Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 5, Jaipur

ITA 565/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tanuj Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

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

case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of computer assisted selection for scrutiny (CASS) under Limited Scrutiny on following reasons: i. Cash deposit in saving bank account is more than the turnover. ii. Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration reported. The statutory notice

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 279/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 69

that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 by declaring total income as Nil. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued and in response to the same, the assessee 2 I.T.A. No. 279/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies

Sethu Pillai Nagalingam, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

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

ITA 1241/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1241/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sethu Pillai Nagalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Anna Square, Ward 1, Thiruvarur 610 001. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Aadpn3943J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2025 Passed By The Addl. Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Treating Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As 2

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

return was processed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposit during the year. Against statutory notices, the assessee filed the details as called for. The Assessing Officer also obtained bank statement under section

Dk 140 Uthangarai Pueshes Teachers & Emp. Co-Op Thrift & Credit Scoiety Ltd., Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dk140 Uthangarai Pueshes Teachers Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Emp. Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Ward 1, Society Limited, 140, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri-635 001. [Pan:Aagad3195A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 253(6)Section 44ASection 80P

claimed deduction of ₹.38,42,644/- under section 80P of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected 4 I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/25 for limited scrutiny and issued various statutory notices including show- cause notice as reflected at page 2 of the assessment order. However, there was no compliance from

Savitrivasudeva Govinda Rao, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2072/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, Advocate

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

assessee filed his revised return of income declaring a gross total income of Rs. 3,30,860/-. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and notices were issued for providing details. The assessee filed his written submissions

Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra, Cit(A), 502, Vishal Sagar, Near Sahakar It Office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Market, Patnagar, Ghatkopar Building-400703. East, Mumbai-400075. Pan No. Aikpb 8354 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Mehta

income of Rs. 2,98,820/ declaring total income of Rs. 2,98,820/-. The case was selected for The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed

Mr Manish Jagdish Bajaj, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Manish Jagdish Bajaj Pcit-41, Mumbai Flat No. 605,606, 6Th Floor, Farm Room No. 541, Kautilya Manor Chs Adarsh Colony, Marve Vs. Bhava, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400064 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Aghpb 6661 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

income of Rs. 1,41,39,170/-. The return of income . The return of income filed by the by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of agriculture income and selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of agriculture income and selected for limited scrutiny

Suresh Surindersing Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5284/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsuresh Surindersing Yadav, H. No. 21/14, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaapy1981G V/S Ito, Ward – 9(2)(3), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri I.P. BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 274Section 69A

filed her return of income on 31.07.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.25,93,460/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, inter alia, for verification of larger cash deposits during the year. Accordingly, statutory notices under 143(2) and section 142(1) were

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

income was e-filed on 01.12.2018, declaring NIL income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny by way of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 28.09.2019 for the following reasons:- (i) investments/Advances/Loans; and (ii) expenses incurred

Ganapathy Panneerselvam, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 609/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganapathy Panneerselvam, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.19, New No.49, Vs. Non-Corp. Ward -19(4), Chetty Street, Chennai. Saidapet West, Chennai – 600 015. [Pan:Bikpp-3640-L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T

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

declaring a total income of Rs.9,94,670/-. The return was duly processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Accordingly, a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 10.08.2018, followed

ACIT Circle 34(1), New Delhi vs. B.K. Sales Corporation, Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4034/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Vs. B. K. Sales Corporation, 804, 8Th Floor, E2 Block, Circle-34(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaafb4846K

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

order of the ld AO is hit by an incurable defect inasmuch as the ld AO has exceeded his authority available under the limited scrutiny instructions of the Board. It was submitted qua CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016 dated 14.07.2016, that it has been clearly mandated that an AO will have ... restrict his enquiries/ investigation and consequent addition to the issues for which the case has been taken up for the limited scrutiny. Thus, an AO does not has the authority to travel beyond the mandate of limited scrutiny issues for which a case has been selected. The ld counsel argued

The Salur Girijan Co Op Marketing Society Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 118/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(f)

said return of income was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verifying the “deductions from total income under Chapter VIA of the Act”. 4. As the assessee society, despite sufficient opportunities had failed

The Saluru Girijan Co Op Marketing Society Limited, Saluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 117/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(f)

Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, Solapur vs. Ward 1(2), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post-Wasud, Sangola, S Ward-1(2), Solapur. Dist – Solapur – 413307. Maharashtra. Pan : Asvpk0584A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 24.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Appeal

Section 144Section 250

ISSUES INVOLVED - The main issues involved in this appeal are - ITA No. 567/PUN/2024 [A] A. Legal validity of the assessment order-exceeding scope of limited scrutiny (Ground No. 1) B. Legal validity of the assessment order u/s 144-Not issuing mandatory SCN u/s 144 (Ground No. 2) C. Violation ... made to the returned income (Ground No. 5 to 9) 1. Ground 1-Assessment order is bad in law-exceeding scope of limited scrutiny 1.1. The assessment was picked was for limited scrutiny for the verification of "cash deposit during the year". Refer notice u/s 143(2) (copy

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

processed under section 143(1) by the CPC on 16.11.2021 determining a refund of Rs.2,21,260/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS to examine/verify on the reasons that investment in immovable property/the purchase value of the property is less than the value determined

Shanker Narayan Agarwal, Jodhpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him & Also Before Assessing Authority In Regard To Making Addition Of Rs. 11,78,500/- As Unexplained Money. 2. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Does Not Prove That Amount Previously Withdrawn From Bank Neither Invested Or Used By Assessee As Such The Order Under Appeal Is Bad In Law Thus Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Not Follow The Various Decision Of Itat Submitted Before Both Of Them & Decision Taken Contrary To Such Decision Is Bad In Law & Bad In Facts. 4. That Your Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend & Alter Any Of Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

filed on 24.07.2017 declaring total taxable income of Rs.6,55,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 by CASS, on the ground that the assessee has cash deposited