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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sabrunnisa Israr Ahmad Shaikh, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 8620/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsabrunnisa Israr Ahmad Shaikh 928/I, Ansar Apartment, New Gauripada, Vidyashram Post Office, Bhiwandi, Mumbai- 421305 ............... Appellant Pan: Ausps3051R

For Appellant: Ms. Deepa Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

return of income on 02/10/2017, declaring a total income of INR 2,39,830. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period, as compared to the returned income. Accordingly, statutory notices under section

New Delhi U.P Road Carriers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2571/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 New Delhi Up Road Vs. Pr. Cit-4, New Delhi Carriers Private Limited, 148/59, Jal Lakshmi Cghs Ltd., Ip Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi- 110092 [Pan No. Aaacn5018L) (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny. AO passed the order after making the enquiry in compliance of the order and the assessment order found correct. He also submitted that assessment order was passed after

Faizan Ahmad, Dehradun vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

Appeal is allowed

ITA 821/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Faizan Ahmad, Vs Pcit, Verendra Kalra & Co., Cas, Dehradun-248001 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acbpa6844R Assessee By : Ms. Ruchika Rana, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Pcit, Dehradun’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031618340(1) Dated 19.03.2021, In Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchika Rana, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 263

this factual backdrop that we notice from the learned PCIT’s revision order itself at page 1 that the assessee’s case involved “limited” scrutiny inter alia regarding the twin issues of mismatch in sales turnover and substantial increase in capital than that of advances received and agricultural income (supra ... case, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that once the Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, his regular assessment framed on 15.11.2017 could neither be termed as an an erroneous one nor that causing prejudice to the interest

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1), Raipur vs. Bharat Agro Industries, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as above

ITA 511/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.53,41,840/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny under category of limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) investigated the issue of purchases of Cassia Tora seeds to the tune

Surendranagar District Co Op Producers Union Limited, Surendranagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(b)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

Thiruvengatam Vinayagam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2285/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 13.11.2025
Section 142(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 68Section 69

assessment year under consideration, i.e., 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.8,30,570/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s.142(1) were issued to the assessee on various dates seeking for certain details. The assessee filed its reply vide letter dated ... floods that occurred in December 2015, a fact which has not been controverted by the Revenue. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny. However, owing to non-production of complete books of account, the Assessing Officer referred the matter for special audit under section

Shri Jamnadas Virjibhai Bhalodia, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward- 1 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 182/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.182/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम/ Shri Jamnadas Virjibhai Bhalodia Income Tax Officer B-602, Pentagon Tower, Opp. Vs Ward – 1(1)(2), Rajkot Speedwell Party Plot, Behind Govani Chhatralay, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afzpb6922N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under Limited Scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2018 and the same was duly served upon the assessee. Notice

Sohan Lal, Mandi vs. CIT(A), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 208/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sohan Lal Walia, The Ito, M/S Walia Enterprises, Vs Mandi. Ner Chowk, Balh, Mandi (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ablpw2185L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Munish Sood, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Yamini, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Munish Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini, CIT DR

that assessee has filed his return of income electronically on 18.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,66,890/-. His case was selected to limited scrutiny. According to the AO, it is discernable that assessee has made a huge deposit of Rs.8.94 Cr in the name of Walia Enterprises and Sohan

Income Tax Officer, Dhule vs. Dharatidhan Fertilisers Limited, Dhule

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

ITA 773/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

addition made on account of share application money pending for more than one year. 5.1 The case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the large share application money pending for more than one year as compared to preceding year. AO observed that in balance

Afzal Pasha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 233/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessment year 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 by declaring total income of Rs.62,39,520/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS on the issue of “unsecured loans”. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine “unsecured loans”. It is also an undisputed fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted the details

Prashanth Basavaraju, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Mysuru

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

ITA 2174/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Prashanth Basavaraju, 15, 6Th Main, 7Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Saraswathipuram, Ward 1(4), Vs. Mysuru, Karnataka – 570 009. Mysuru. Pan: Bjipp0753K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, CA
Section 142Section 143Section 69A

agricultural income of ₹ 450,000 on 26 July 2017. The case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny under the limited scrutiny for the reason of cash deposited during demonetization period and therefore the notices under section 143 (2) and notices under section 142 (1) were issued

Hiriadka Souharda Sahakari (Ni), Udupi vs. ITO-Ward 1&Tps, Aadi Udupi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Hiriadka Souhadra Sahakari (Ni), Post Office Main Road, The Income Tax Officer, Hiriadka, Udupi, Ward-1& Tps, Vs. Karnataka – 576 113. Udupi. Pan: Aabah2220H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Authorized Representative has submitted an additional ground of Appeal stating that notice was issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act for the purpose of limited scrutiny and therefore covering the additional issues which were not identified in the limited scrutiny could not have been taken. He referred to the notice

Gomti Research and Pharmachem Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1517/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Suhana T.H.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 156Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 40a

case are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed their return of income on 10/10/2018. Thereafter their case was selected for limited scrutiny to enquire about the default in TDS and disallowance for such default. Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) was issued to provide details of expenses

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 638/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.638/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ces Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad – 500 032. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcs4564P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca P Murali Mohan Rao िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

duty bound to restrict to the claim of the assessee unless he after taking the approval from the competent authority made the limited scrutiny assessment to full-fledged assessment. That has not been done, therefore, AO was duty bound to restrict to its findings only to the issue under consideration

Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Chikmaglur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, along with ground no

ITA 2027/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,32,59,0007/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,26,452/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of large agricultural income. The notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. By issue of various notices, the Assessee

Jan Kalyan Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Rs.1,80,241/- in their financial statement. He observed that the case was selected on the ground of transaction with the specified person under Limited Scrutiny. On perusal of the balance sheet, he noticed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land for Rs.30,00,000/- to Shri Jagan Nanth

Ravindra Dhaka, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2332/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Ravindra Dhaka Vs Pr.Cit, H.No.-420F, Sector-38, Faridabad Gurgaon-122001 Pan-Afqpd9356P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca & Shri Kinshuk Gautam, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

assessee is an individual and filed his return of income, declaring total income at INR 27,12,580/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Faceless AO asked the JAO to provide legible copies of the documents relied upon by the Investigation

Late Shri Anand Alias Vishwanath Mamani, Through His Legal Heir Smt. Ratna Anand Mamani, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Belagavi, Belagavi

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

ITA 352/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.352/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Late Shri Anand Alias Vs Ito-Ward-1, Vishwanath Mamani Through Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . His Legal Heir Smt.Ratna Civil Hospital Road Anand Mamani, Belagavi-590001. 3138/3, Ramapur Site, Karnataka. Saundatti, Belagavi-591126, Karnataka. Pan,No.Avhpm6615P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Sri.Shivananad Halbhavi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Under Section 68 Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-18 On 05.08.2017 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.11,93,580/- & The Case

Section 68

Rs.11,93,580/- and the case 2 ITA. No.352/PAN/2025 Anand Alias Vishwanath Mamani through legal heir smt Ratna Anand Mamani.. was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS to verify (i)Large cash deposits during the year compared to returned income(ii)Cash deposit during demonetization period

Jagdish Kumar Yadav, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.593/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jagdish Kumar Yadav Near Boudh Vihar Near To S.V Public School, Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aakpy0660J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

merits becomes academic. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2016-17 for initiating limited scrutiny had been issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, dated 18.09.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act for the same ... Counsel submitted that firstly, if the original jurisdiction of the assessee is with ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur who had initiated the proceedings for limited scrutiny and later on, transferred to the ITO, Ward-3(1), then as per the mandatory requirement of the Act, order of transfer

Rajeshbhai Parsottamdas Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 429/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271ASection 69A

filed return of income on 25-07-2017 declaring total income at Rs. 1,78,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued on 14-08-2018. In response to the notice, assessee submitted the reply and after