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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Ashok Bricks Industries Private Limited, Belpahar R S vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela Circle

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

ITA 182/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

income of Rs.5,39,05,660/- which was revised on 19.1.2019 declaring total income of Rs.5,48,52,660/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of default in TDS and disallowance for such default and on the issue of share premium received. On verification of details

K 1382 Avinashi Kurumapalayam Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Society, Tirupur vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

In the result the appeal filed for the A

ITA 2941/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2941 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K 1382 Avinashi Kurumapalayam The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-Op.Credit Vs. Ward 1(4), Society, Tirupur. Kurumbapalayam, Cheyur Post, Avinashi Taluk.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M. D. Vijay Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

total income of Rs.NIL after claiming deduction under chapter VIA of the Act amounting to Rs.13,74,290/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify deduction under chapter VIA. After issuing statutory notices the :-3-: ITA. No.:2941/Chny/2024 assessee filed details called for from time to time

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

bank account of the assessee maintained with Bharath Co- operative Bank Ltd., Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore, in account No.02301210000863. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and examined 2 issues viz., (1) Agricultural Income (2) Cash deposited during demonetization period. 34. Accordingly, notice under section ... course of appellate proceedings, assessee filed written submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) observed that expanding the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny is weakend by the inclusion of cash deposits totaling to Rs.1,92,58,000/- in search and seizure operation on 24.08.2017 which

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Trikambhai Karshanbhai Padasala, Hemal Village, Taluka Jafrabad, Dist. Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-1 (3) (4), Amreli

In the result, grounds of

ITA 157/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 250

that assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 27.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,55,130/-. Subsequently case was selected for limited scrutiny as cash was deposited during demonetization period. Thereafter notices of hearing issued in ITBA portal where assessee submitted e-mail

Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

following reply along with documents which reads as under: 15 AY: 2017-18 Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal Jain “With reference to your notice dated 17.01.2019 regarding Limited Scrutiny due to cash deposit during demonetization period, I submit the following information as required in your annexure of notice as under: 1. Letter

Hardeep Dalal, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward 35(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3430/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny mentioning: "Large Cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year". While passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.2

Rani Sati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

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

ITA 410/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocaeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,78,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of 2 the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) along with ... time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice page 2 of the assessment order wherein the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny and submitted that the AO has asked the assessee to submit information relating to unsecured loan from Kamdhenu and Shri Amit Mittal. In this

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward – 1, Jalna Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel Patel Show Company, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parbhani – 431401 Pan: Abxpp9642B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 133A(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69C

duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which

Narayana Rao Hebri, Sagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2051/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Page 3 of 22 4.1. The Learned Assessing Officer's action of invoking section 115BBE when the case of the Appellant was selected for 'Limited Scrutiny', is in defiance of Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/ITA.II, dated 28.11.2018 and hence levying tax & surcharge under section 115BBE is void ab initio ... surcharge by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. It was submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. He referred to the notice dated 11.8.2018 u/s. 143(2) of the Act which is placed at page 144 of the PB. According to that

Vasant N. Barabde, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs Dcit Circle 27(3), 602, Sanskar Santi Park, Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai 400088 Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan: Acmpb3211G Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Appeal No: Nfac/2017- 18/10041561 Dated 23.08.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 08.03.201 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 By Treating The Market Value Of The Paa Agreement Registered On 21.09.2017 As Taxable Income U/S 56(2)(X) Being Value Of Property For Which No Consideration Is Paid. 2. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 In The Hands Of The Assessee Instead Of Treating The Same As Exempt In The Hands Ashwini Barabde The Daughter Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

that, assessee filed his return of income on 15.08.2018 reporting total income at Rs.61,34,820/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of purchase value of property less than the value as per stamp authority. Ld. AO noted that assessee had purchase a property

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan, Delhi vs. Swapna Roy, Lucknow

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

ITA 3093/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Swapna Roy Central Circle-01, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, E-2, Ara Centre, Aliganj, Lucknow, Jhandewalan Extension, Uttar Pradesh-226024 New Delhi Pan: Acepr360F Appellant Respondent

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

case are that, the Assessee filed return of income at Rs. 6,21,84,590/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny for following reasons:- ‘Total investment/peak balance in foreign accounts in which taxpayer is a signing authority has increases substantially during the year as compared

Shivoy Enterprises, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ward-29(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7845/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivoy Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer 18, Surajkund Road, Ward-29(4), Pul Pralhad, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110044 Pan: Aatfs9380G Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025

Section 143(3)

that, the Assessee filed return of income at Rs.9,55,420/- for AY 2014-15. The case of the Assessee was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’. Assessment proceedings has been initiated against the assessee and assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

Smt. Ranjana Bajpai, Allahabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(!), Allahabad

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

ITA 150/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 250

declaring a total income of Rs. 13,67,230/- and later revised it to Rs.13,90,410/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. In his order, the ld. AO records that the initial notice returned unserved and subsequently it was served through the notice server. In response, representation

Neeraja Jain, Unique Nursing Home vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 191/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.191/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neerja Jain Unique Nursing Home Old Bus Stand Road, Telipara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Adipn7468C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69C

made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 386467/- of the Ld. AO who travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 4. That under facts in the law the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition u/s 69C which is not attracted as the case ... selected in limited scrutiny for large increase in capital. 5. That under facts in the law the ld. CIT(A) erred in applying section 115BBE as the appellant has no other source of income except the professional receipts. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, and omit

Leela Dutt Sharma, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

income of Rs. NIL. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS, specifically to examine the issue of significant cash deposits during the year. Various statutory notices under sections ... filed ITR for AY 2017-18 on 01.11.2017 declaring loss of Rs. 9,22,217/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of Cash Deposit during the year. 6.1 It was further submitted that, in assessment framed u/s 144, Ld. AO made addition

Anil Kumar 244 Dehar Naraingarh Ambala, Ambala vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Ambala, Ambala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1225/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.2,52,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period. Statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued; however, no effective compliance was made

Dulal Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 28, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.369/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dulal Bhattacharjee…..………………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aedpb8602E] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A), Bhopal [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.09.2015 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,84,310/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Relating To The Issue Of Income/Capital Gains On Sale Of Land Or Building, Sale Of Property Mismatch, Sundry Creditors & Sales Turnover Mismatch. Thereafter, Statutory Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Duly Complied To The Notices. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Found That The

Section 142(1)Section 43C

assessment year 2015- 16 by declaring total income of Rs.15,84,310/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS relating to the issue of income/capital gains on sale of land or building, sale of property mismatch, sundry creditors and sales turnover mismatch. Thereafter, statutory

Ram Kaur Singh, Kolkata vs. Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [Pan: Alhps2735G] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navans Shah, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, The Case Of

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

total income of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, the case of I.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in relation to (i) cash deposits made during the demonetization period and (ii) income from house property. Accordingly, statutory notices

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd……………………………………...….……….Appellant Room No.1A, 20B, West Bengal, East India House, Bbd Bag, West Bengal-700069. [Pan: Aadcc6607K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 88 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income As Nil. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 69Section 69C

declaring total income as Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for I.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd limited scrutiny under CASS followed by issuing of notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act to the assessee and the assessee complied