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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur, Ncrb, Statue Circle vs. Pooja Gidwani, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as having been withdrawn

ITA 1089/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: , Ms. Alka Gautam. CIT-DR

case on technical ground rather than on merits of the case in spite of the fact the case has not been converted from Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny and the AO has elaborately discussed the issue of cash deposits as well as source of cash deposit which comes under ... purview of Limited Scrutiny? 2 ITO, WARD 6(1) , JAIPUR VS POOJA GIDWANI 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and made addition on the issues

Ghanshyambhai Nanalal Charandas, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1) (Previously Ward-3(3)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 298/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.6,31,710/- along with agricultural income of Rs.28,00,000/-. The return was taken for limited scrutiny assessment and assessment was completed on total income of Rs.1,70,11,619/- by making addition of Rs.88,60,909/- on cash deposits ... Order so passed by the Ld. AO & the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC is bad in law, illegal and exceeding the jurisdiction conferred under the limited scrutiny assessment for "large cash deposit in saving bank account", besides being in violation of the principle of natural justices & equity, as having been passed

Atish Ananda Barne, Pune vs. Pravin Agrawal, Pune

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

ITA 1707/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 disclosing total income of Rs.17,19,580/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and followed by validly serving of statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act the assessee made his submissions. On the basis

The Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzffarpur, Muzaffarpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.280/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd..…....Appellant Sadar Hospital Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Aabat7831Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Anwar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2023 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 Case Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society & Engaged In Banking Business. For The Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016 By Showing A Total Income Of Rs.65,05,270/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Terms Of Guidelines Issued By The Cbdt Vide Instruction No.5/2007. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & In Response To The Said Notices, No One Turned Up Before The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Therefore Passed An Order U/S 144 By Making Certain Additions In Following Manner:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

filed its return of income on 15.10.2016 by showing a total income of Rs.65,05,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in terms of guidelines issued by the CBDT vide instruction no.5/2007. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur vs. ACIT (Exmp.) Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 951/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57

assessee e-filed its return of income on 30.12.2020 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “large deduction claimed u/s 57 (Business ITR)”. Statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income ... appeal and written submission filed by the appellant. The appellant is Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The case was selected for limited scrutiny complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that large deduction claimed u/s 57’. During the course of assessment proceedings the appellant had submitted

Nadia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nadia vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

application to comply with the said instruction. The Id. AR stated that the said instruction has prescribed three formats for issuing notices namely (i) limited scrutiny (computer aided scrutiny selection), (ii) complete scrutiny (computer aided scrutiny selection) and (iii) Compulsory manual selection. 05. The Id. Counsel for the assessee also ... Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2.The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note

Saurav Mittal, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 2077/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-2(3) Sourav Mittal Aaykar Bhavan, Matigara, 2Nd Mile, Pcm House, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001, Siliguri-734004, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Borpm5315L Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

income on 29.03.2018, declaring total income of ₹8,02,930/-. The case of the Sourav Mittal; A.Y. 2017-18 assessee was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposited during the financial year. Accordingly, statutory and other notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee

Arabinda Paul., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-5, Arabinda Paul Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Shanti Pally, Eastern Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Metropolitan By Pass, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700107 Street, Kolkata-700001 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adwpp7060B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263

assessee on 06.11.2017, declaring total income of ₹4,87,850/-. Arabinda Paul; A.Y. 2017-18 Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits during the instant financial year. Accordingly, the assessment was framed by the ld. AO vide order dated 19.12.2019, passed ... assessment framed vide order dated 19.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the scrutiny was selected as a limited scrutiny as is apparent from the notice issued dated 08.08.2018, u/s 143(2) of the Act for examination of cash deposits during the financial year

Brij Raj Singh Rathaur, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-41, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

eyes of law, considering under-mentioned facts :- a) The Assessing officer has erred by proceeding beyond the scope of Limited scrutiny as per the 'reason for limited scrutiny' shared with assessee. b) The Assessing Officer had erred by stating the Principal customer of the assessee had failed to provide

T and D Petro Services, Saligao vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

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

ITA 190/PAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

disclosing a total income of Rs.3,00,950/-. Subsequently the case was selected for 2 ITA. No. 190/PAN/2023 T And D Petro services. limited scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. In compliance, the Ld.AR

Kyocera Document Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is

ITA 7105/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy311374.7105 /Feeeh/2025 (Fer.A. 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 8,03,000/- comprising of income from house property and interest income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine large cash deposits during demonetization period vis-a-vis the returned income. Statutory notices

Ratika Kumbhat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1017/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

hearing of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the case was selected for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny criteria to examine cash deposit for demonetization period (9th Nov. to 30th December) as reported as per specified financial transaction [SFT] reporting as to verify ... copy of ITR placed at Paper Book Page No. 10 TO 13) 2. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) dated 19/9/2017. (Pb page no 14) The reason given in the said notice for limited scrutiny was as under

Yatinbhai Pramukhbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 434/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.434/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Yatinbhai Pramukhbhai Patel The Acit बनाम / V/S. Circle-3(3) 2, Parivar Society Part-2 Near Premchand Nagar Row-House, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adrpp 8846 K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Dated 09/01/2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao") Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2017-18.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Case: 2. The assessee filed the return of income on 13/01/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.25,44,020/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS (Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection) with the specific issue of verifying cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO issued a notice under ... without appreciating that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of jurisdiction by making the said addition, as the appellant's case was selected for limited scrutiny specifically for the verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period. 5. During the course of the hearing before us, the Authorized Representative

Mehsana District Co. Operative Purchase and Sales Union Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle Mehsana, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1760/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act, 1961. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018 was issued and thereafter notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued

Namitha Deenadayalu Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1572/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Sudheer Pradhu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

declaring total income of Rs.14,35,170/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “whether deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly”. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) as well

Brizo Reality Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2941/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbrizo Reality Company Private Vs. Nfac Delhi Limited Maharashtra. 802 B, Grande Palladium, Near Mercedez Showroom, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Maharashtra – 400 098 Pan: Aaecb5443M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 was sent and served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.07.2017 was also sent alongwith ... questionnaire for limited scrutiny. The assessee filed the revised reply to the said notice. It is noticed that the assessee company is engaged in the business of renting of immovable property. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee filed revised computation of income declaring total loss at (-) Rs.2

Basavraj Tangadi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6, Belagavi

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

ITA 94/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 94/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Basavaraj Tangadi, Ito-Ward-6, Vs “Shree Murughendra” , Civil Hospital Road, . Plot.No 54,Bouxite Road, Belagavi-590001. Vidhyanagar, Teachers Colony, Karnataka. Belagavi-590019, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aatpt3412G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

ITBA data, found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization period and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS . Further the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued and there was compliance

Amartbhai Mandanbhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

assessee had claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act and the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the capital gain on sale of property and claim of deduction / exemption from capital gains. During the course of original assessment proceedings, the return of income file ... assessee reiterated the submissions made before PCIT. Secondly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was opened for limited scrutiny and therefore, the Assessing Officer had duly enquired into this aspect. The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to relevant pages of the Paper

Aggipothu Kupparam Nageswara Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2359/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.K. Balasubramanian
Section 143(1)

which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’). Later, the return was selected for limited scrutiny; and the AO noted in the assessment order that assessee was in receipt of compensation for land acquired to the tune of Rs.79,16,001/- which

Shri C. Thangaraj, Tirupur vs. PCIT-3, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. by virtualFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

prop: of Key Tex Hosieries, filed his return of income on 26.05.2015 admitting an income of ₹.6,40,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS i.e. in respect of cash-deposit and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short ... wrong to state that original assessment was selected for complete scrutiny and pointed out that the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verification of the cash deposits (refer page 1 of paper book viz. notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.07.2016) and that