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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

ACIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi vs. Green Infra Wind Farm Assets Ltd., Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7044/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(tii)Section 37Section 37(1)

return of income was e-filed on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of INR 1,21,16,410/-. The assessment was taken up for limited scrutiny and in terms of order dated Page | 1 ITA Nos.7044/Del/2019 & 1126/Del/2020 26.12.2017, the total income of the assessee was assessed

Gowri Shankar Gupta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 514/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 294Section 69A

return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 24.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs.47,74,430/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for two reasons, viz.(i) the amount paid or credited in his “Form 26AS” was significantly more as compared to the income from house

Kannan Aravindhan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3039/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3039/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kannan Aravindhan, Ito, No.16/15, Raja Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -2(1), Ganapathy Coimbatore – 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Bozpa-0750-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee is one of the distributors of Muthoot Finance and number of retail distributors are appointed by the assessee. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify cash deposit made during the A.Y. 2018-19. The AO issued statutory notices to the notices

Super Crop Safe Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1552/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80J

filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 30.03.2019 declaring income of Rs.1,98,72,520/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine large agricultural income. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of bio-fertilizers and pesticides. It is also cultivating ‘Mycorrhizal Fungal Infected

Srinivasan Rajasekaran, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2914/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2914/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Srinivasan Rajasekaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 70G – 5, Seenu Complex, Ward 1, Indira Nagar, Hosur 635 109. Hosur. [Pan:Aeepr3817E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 68

assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 25.09.2018. Later on, the case has been selected for limited scrutiny towards cash deposit. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked about the reconciliation of the cash deposits made during the year under consideration

Hetal Pagare, ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Mulund West

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

assessee’s returned income after scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act was accepted and one Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat of the reasons for limited scrutiny was "Other Deduction claimed". It is stated that during the AY 2015-16, the assessee has net professional fees ... assessment of the year under consideration has already been made u/s 143(3) of the Act. Even though it was stated that to be limited scrutiny assessment, yet the assessment was conducted in all respects wherein all the details as regards income offered for tax was asked by the assessing

Ramesh Dungarshi Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually)For Respondent: 14.02.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 23(5)Section 250

amounting to Rs. 1,74,997/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, for the reason that the assessee has not declared income from house property for unsold shops/flats which remained vacant during the year

Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 992/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.992/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk Vs. The Ito, 16, Dharmajivan Society, Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. New Chopati, Varachha Surat Road, Surat. 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abzpd0899G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69

case in brief are that assessee filed return of income on 21.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,80,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “Whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed”. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that

Jigar Dilkhushbhai Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.299/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Jigar Dilkhushbhai Shah, Vs. The Ito, F/17, 1203-4, Green City, Palgam Ward- 2(3)(6), Bhatha, Surat-395009 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbsps8457F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income on 14.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.9,11,050/-. The case was selectedfor limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “Cash deposit during demonetization period”.The assessee deposited SBNs of Rs.1,45,65,000/- in his bank account

Shyam Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 492/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

income for assessment year 2015-16 on 23-09-2015 admitting total income of Rs. 2,02,39,390/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny relates to sales in sales registered difference of Rs. 1,38,57,00/- in sales turnover and the interest shown

Manda Shivaji Pawar, Pune vs. ITO Ward-8(3), Pune

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

ITA 481/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.481/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Kimaya KudvaFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring income of Rs.8,490/- in the return furnished on 27.07.2016. Case processed u/s.143(1) but thereafter selected for limited scrutiny under CASS followed by validly serving of notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was scrutinised for examining

M/S. the Rajaji Nagar Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mallaharao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

income within the prescribed due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice under section 143(2) dated 22nd September 2019. During the assessment proceeding, the National E-assessment Centre (NeAC) issued various notices under ... time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. . Page 6 of 8 13.1 Although the case of the assessee was later selected for limited scrutiny and assessed under section 143(3) of the Act by the National E- assessment Centre (NeAC), which accepted the returned income without any modifications

Hikkllu Rangamuthaiah Gopal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1735/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sripada M, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 44ASection 69A

chapter-VI-A of the Act, the assessee declared the taxable income of ₹9,81,490/- only. The return of income was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the correctness of contract receipts/fees and cash deposits in the bank. 4. During the assessment proceeding it was found that the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Aps Energy Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/KOL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Aps Energy Private Limited Asst. Commissioner Of Income Room No. 452 & 453, Tax, Central Circle 4(1) Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Marchall House, 33/1, Vs. Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Netaji Subhas Road, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica3205G Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Altaf Hussain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 68

declaring total income of ₹ 23,347/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) under limited scrutiny. APS Energy Pvt. ltd.; A.Y. 2015-16 Accordingly, statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee which the assessee complied with by furnishing

Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1493/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 250Section 251Section 68

declaring taxable income at Rs.2,83,430/- and agricultural income of Rs.19,76,214/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Substantial increase in capital (Part-ABS of ITR)". After due deliberation on the issue between the assessee and the AO, Rs.1

Mahaveer Oil Distributors, Shahpura Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Behror, Behror Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1390/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: MS. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Harshita Chauhan, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 was started against the partner of assessee. Shri Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal. The case of partner was taken under limited scrutiny to verify the source of Rs.1800000/- deposited in bank account. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the partner of firm submitted that the cash was withdrawn

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Unimax Buildestate Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 103/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee; and in allowing the appeal of the assessee on wrong presumption that the AO has exceeded the scope of inquiry allowed under Limited Scrutiny disregarding the fact that it is same single transaction involving the consideration reported under CASS parameter where the assessee is a purchaser ... transaction reported under CASS parameter and in ignoring the fact that the AO has restricted the enquiry only to the issue of limited scrutiny thereby bringing the undisclosed transaction under tax umbrella within the true spirit of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether on the facts

ACIT, Central Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. Avinash Knatilal Jain, Jalgaon

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

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 31.10.2015, declaring total income at Rs.38,56,480/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served on the appellant. During the course

Didwana Vikash Parishad Samiti, Didwana, Nagaur vs. AO, NFAC, Jodhpur

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

ITA 172/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

facts, and the order passed by Id. AO was not justified and the additions made were outside the scope of limited scrutiny assessment. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Id. AO that the donations of Rs. 1,63,41,090/- received and utilized ... order is bad in law and bad on facts as it is contrary to facts being out of the scope of limited scrutiny, but he failed to demonstrate. He contended that the Id. CIT(A) has not properly appreciating the facts and circumstances while upholding additions of the donations

Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Bhopal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not considering the fact that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS whereas the Assessing Officer has travelled beyond the reasons recorded for which the case was reopened and as such, the order passed was void ... income for the impugned assessment year on 17.12.2016 showing an income of Rs.8,23,100/-. The case of the appellant society was selected for limited scrutiny. During the course of the assessment proceedings the as: ee filed a revised computation of income wherein the following adjustments were made