“limited scrutiny”

Virendra Yadav, Madhubani vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Darbhanga

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.248/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Virendra Yadav……..…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Mainapatti, Maheshbada Khajauli, Madhubani, Bihar-847228. [Pan: Agwpy8420E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Darbhanga.……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 04, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The Acit, Circle-3, Darbh [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 373 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep These Appeals Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide

assessee e-filed his return of income on 28.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.38,90,980/. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued requisitioning some details such as audit report, books

Kandregula Krishna, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Kandregula Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle – 2(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan : Aeqpk8590R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

that assessee filed the return of income declaring total income amounting to Rs. 17,99,630/-. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued notice u/s 142(1) & show-case notice. In response to the same, the assessee

Digras Taluka Z P Shikshak Va Karmchari Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Yavatmal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yavatmal

filed it's return of income declaring total income at Rs.49,56,006/-. The case of the assessee society was selected for limited scrutiny on two issues i.e., (i) Investments/Advances/Loans and (ii) deduction from total income under Chapter-VIA. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee calling

Yuwaraj Kundan, Bhojpur vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (4), Arrah

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 204/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Yuwaraj Kundan,………….…..…..……..……Appellant Mission Road, Pakri Nawada Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar-802301 [Pan: Bhgpk6469M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...Respondent Ward-1(4), Ara Appearances By: Shri Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,29,441/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 24th September, 2018 and served on the assessee. In response to notice

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

return was subsequently summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verifying the “cash deposits and transaction in property” and “Capital gains / loss on sale of property”. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during

Nehal Ahmed, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle- 4, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.365/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nehal Ahmed..………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant House No – B/15, New Azimabad Colony (East), Sector-B, Sandalpur, Mahendru, Patna- 800006. [Pan: Aerpa2555B] Vs. Acit, Circle-4, Patna……..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Earned Income From Civil Contract. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring An Income Of Rs.10,58,610/-. The Assessee Initially Had Filed Return Of Income U/S 139(9) Of The Act & Subsequently Revised It Declaring The Same Income. The Assessee Disclosed Income From Contractual Receipt Amounting To Rs.92,51,630/- & Declared Taxable Income U/S 44Ad On Presumptive Basis At Rs.9,25,163/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was

44AD on presumptive basis at Rs.9,25,163/-. The case of the assessee was I.T.A. No.365/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nehal Ahmed selected for limited scrutiny under guidelines issued by the department to verify whether the contract receipts were correctly offered to tax. Consequently, notices

Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Sandila vs. Income Tax Officer, Siwan

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

trading of cloths and had filed the return of income on 30.09.2014, showing total income of Rs.3,35,690/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and the order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on I.T.A. No.: 362/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Kumar Shukla

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

invoking Sec.56(2)(vii)(b) without appreciating the fact that the issue relating to addition is not covered by scope of "limited scrutiny". As the assessee based on the additional ground of appeal has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned ... income of Rs.65,80,280/-. 4 Rahul Bajpai Vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” u/s.143(2) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee had purchased certain land

Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.926/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Vs. The Acit, 1009/10, Ambaji Market, Near Kamela Circle – 1(2), Darwaja, Salabatpura, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afspm7945K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

assessee filed his return of income for AY.2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.17,84,250/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: (i) cash deposits during the year and (ii) sales turnover / receipt. Various notices along with questionnaire were issued

Kamlesh Narang, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gwalior

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

income was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS to examine the cash deposits during the year. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) as well as 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer ... filed by the assessee was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS to examine the cash deposits during the year. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) as well as 142(1) were issued

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

facts in confirming the action of the learned AO even though the learned AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in a limited scrutiny case selected under CASS only to examine whether the investment and income relating to securities transactions are duly disclosed or not and added a sum of Rs.44 ... income from business of printing and no income was declared on account of transactions carried out in shares. The case was taken up for limited scrutiny for the reason that during the year under appeal the assesee has entered into the share transactions where the STT was paid