← All Phrases

“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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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
84
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
39
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
31
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
25
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
25
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
20
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
13
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

Rajendran Sharmila, Annur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No 2315/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendran Sharmila 1/66 Main Road, Kariagoundanur Vadakkalur Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641653 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Све (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Bicps 3272 D] अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/ Assessee By Mr. K. Muthukumar, Ca प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे / Respondent By Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of 16.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Dated 07.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,50,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”).

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

that the assessee filed his Return of Income on 20.09.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.7,24,610/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) mechanism. The specific reason for such selection was verification of “cash deposits during the year

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

also challenged the covering of the entire gamut of assessment during the assessment proceedings pointing out that the case had been selected for limited scrutiny, but the ld. CIT(A) held the same to be untenable in view of the fact that it was mentioned in the assessment order that

Chetan Shashikant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7320/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

without jurisdiction and has to be quashed and set aside. . On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the fact that the limited scrutiny u/s 143(3) was for the specific purpose of the purchase of property which was duly assessed and hence reopening on the same issue ... paid during the relevant year towards the purchase of the said property. His case was selected for limited scrutiny of this purchase of property. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished detailed submissions before the AO explaining the sources of the payment along with a confirmation letter provided

DCIT, Circle 52(1), New Delhi vs. Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Adv. (Virtual) S/Shri
Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54B

return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for limited scrutiny based on following reasons: ITA No. 2964/DEL/2023 1. “Substantial increase in capital in a year”. 2. “Large deduction claimed u/s. 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA". 3. “Large long ... return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for Limited Scrutiny based on the reasons: 1. Substantial increase in capital in a year" 2. Large deduction claimed u/s. 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA" 3. Large long term capital gains". 3. During

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 794/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 25. We note that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine investments, advances, loans, unsecured loans, deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The findings of the Assessing Officer under section ... reproduced below: “1. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S. No. Issues i. Investments/Advances/Loans ii. Unsecured Loans iii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A The assessee society has filed Return of Income for AY.2018-19

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir - 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 793/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 25. We note that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine investments, advances, loans, unsecured loans, deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The findings of the Assessing Officer under section ... reproduced below: “1. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S. No. Issues i. Investments/Advances/Loans ii. Unsecured Loans iii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A The assessee society has filed Return of Income for AY.2018-19

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

directing proper inquiries with respect to share capital subscription u/s 68 of the Act which issue is beyond the scope of 'Limited Scrutiny' criterion for the assessment before the Id. A.O. and thus, the same is without jurisdiction and invalid in the eyes ... accepting the retum income of Rs. Nil 2. On perusal of record, it was seen that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS mainly on the reason that "large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section). Therefore

Balamurugan Rajsunil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1170/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 69

facts are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the year declaring total income at NIL. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash deposit during the demonetisation. 4. The AO during the assessment proceeding found that during the demonetisation period

Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), Delhi vs. Hema Arora, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6324/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69A

assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,81,480/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason ‘abnormal inquiries in cash deposits’ during demonetization period as compared to pre demonetization period. Accordingly notices

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, Cr Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, ITO C.R. Building vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY

ITA 319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

ACIT, C 2(1)(1), Agra vs. Sunil Kumar Joshan, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 494/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Vs. Sunil Kumar Joshan, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Circle-2(1)(1), Agra Km Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P Co 07/Agr/2025 (In Ita No.494/Agr/2025) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sunil Kumar Joshan, Vs. Acit, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Km Circle-2(1)(1), Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Agra Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

bank account of the appellant. 3. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in converting limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny on 20.10.2016 even though notices broadening the scrutiny beyond the scope of limited scrutiny were issued prior to 20.10.2016, which

Guhana Educational Society, Suryapet vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 784/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.784/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guhana Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 2-1-65, Kasturi Bazar Exemption Ward-1(2) Suryapet-508213 Aayakar Bhavan Telangana Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Telangana Pan: Aaaag5294R (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Guhana Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 13.03.2025 For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law; 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Account & In Resorting To Estimation Of Income At 8% Of The Receipts Of Rs.2,58,90,677/-;

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

after claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, and accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer

Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') the scope of which was later expanded from 'Limited Scrutiny' to 'Complete Scrutiny' and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued along with a questionnaire. The assessee responded to all notices

Mohan, Triupur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Tirupur

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

ITA 2118/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

income (RoI) filed by the assessee [ITR filed on 16.03.2018 for AY 2017-18 declaring total income at ₹8,37,250/-] was selected for “limited scrutiny under CASS” to examine the “cash deposit during the year”. However, according to the Ld.AR, a perusal of the assessment order would reveal that ... garments and filed his ITR/RoI for AY 2017-18 on 16.03.2018 admitting total income at ₹8,37,250/-, which ITR was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposits during the year. The AO is noted to have asked for the details of the cash deposits

Namakkal South India Transports, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1992/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37

Agent. The assessee filed its return of income admitting NIL income for the A.Y.2018-19 ON 23.10.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify large expenditure by way of penalty or fine for violation of any law, as reported in the ITR and Form 3CD and substantial loan squared