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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sankheda Jetpur Pavi Taluka Ginning Pressing Cotton Sale Co.Op Society Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 397/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(e)

filed a return of income on September 29, 2015, declaring a total income of Rs. NIL. The assessment for this return was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS framework. Consequently, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on August 30, 2017, where

M/S. K B Developers, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1504/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 68

income on 17.03.2016 declaring loss of Rs. 12,25,793/-. The case of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) and thereafter selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for three reasons namely; i) Sundry Creditors, ii) Investment in unlisted equities and iii) Low Income and high loans / advance/investments. Accordingly, notices

Jj105 Perambakkam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruvallur vs. ITO Ward 1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1498/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Jj105 Perambakkam Primary The Ito, Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Society, Ward-1, No.252, Nallathamman Koil Street, Tiruvallur. Perambakkam, Tiruvallur – 631 402. [Pan: Aabaj 1902 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CA

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

also noted that Society is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and that RoI of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny; and the AO also noted that the assessee has filed ITR u/s.139(4) of the Act i.e. belatedly and has claimed deduction u/s.80P

Aslam Fazlurehman Kagdi, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in passing the order u/s 263 as he could not have passed the order u/s 263, being taken the case for limited scrutiny under CASS and, therefore, the Pr. CIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the notice u/s 263 and passing the order u/s 263 (1). 2. That ... order as passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is against the norms laid down under the CBDT circular for "limited scrutiny" and having not raised the issue in the show cause notice with regard to issue under 'limited scrutiny case" and raising other issues in the show cause notice under

Sri Rudraprasad Mandal, Medinipur vs. DCIT, Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has made the addition in respect of an item which was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny that too without obtaining prior approval of PCIT as directed by CBDT vide Instruction No. F. No. 225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28.11.2018 and therefore the order ... which was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposits during demonetization period. Meaning thereby that the scrutiny was limited scrutiny and not complete scrutiny. However, during the course of assessment proceedings and while framing the assessment, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by raising this issue which

Subhendu Roy, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1621/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1621/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhendu Roy…………....………………………… ........................……Appellant 93, Park Street, West Bengal-700016. [Pan: Acypr0191F] Vs. Acit, Delhi………………................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raj Singha Maji, Staff, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.06.2024 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. Shri Raj Singha Maji, Staff Of The Assessee, Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee & An Adjournment Letter Has Been Filed, However, A Perusal Of The Case File Reveals That There Is Only A Small Issue Involved In This Appeal, Which Can Be Decided After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. A Perusal Of The Assessment Order Reveals That In This Case, Limited Scrutiny Assessment Was Carried Out, Wherein, It Has Been Categorically Written By The Assessing Officer That No Additions Are Made & The

Section 250

this appeal, which can be decided after hearing the ld. DR. 3. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that in this case, limited scrutiny assessment was carried out, wherein, it has been categorically written by the Assessing Officer that no additions are made and the I.T.A No.1621/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

Tabrez Iqbal Sayed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhritabrez Iqbal Sayed V/S. Ito, Ward 12(3)(1) बनाम 1002, 10Th Floor, Yusuf Room No. 147A, 1St Floor, Manzil, Dr. Anandrao Nair Aayakar Bhavan, Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anops1005J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K. Goapal a/w Shri OmFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs. 6,72,730/-. The assessee has mainly shown salary income during the year. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash of Rs. 33,50,000/- deposited in his bank account during the demonetization period. Before the AO, the assessee contended that

Rajesh Kumar Goyal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Jaipur

In the result, appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 1079/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

case, the ld. AO made the addition on the issues which were completely different from the issues on the basis of which limited scrutiny notice was given and as mentioned in notice u/s 143(2). Thus, such an addition without prior approval of specified authority is invalid and hence ... section 143(1) of the IT 3 Rajesh Kumar Goyal, Jaipur. Act, 1961 by the CPC. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 29.06.2017 and duly served on the assessee

Nisha Bhradwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3 (3), Jaipur

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

ITA 617/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

return of income on 14.03.2018, vide acknowledgement No. 448131670140318, declaring total income of Rs. 2,44,260/-. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2018, to the assessee on ITBA, which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) along

Sandeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mudra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 90

true particulars of income. In the present case the appellant would have never revised the return had his case not been selected for limited scrutiny or any notice issued u/s 143(2). I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the AO hot to acknowledge the revised return ... true particulars of income. In the present case the assessee would never have revised the return had his case not been selected for limited scrutiny or any notice issued u/s 143(2). Therefore, the revised return can not be acknowledged as it violates the spirit of the section

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Click cab Technology LLP at total consideration of Rs. 99,99,000/-. (iv) Since the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue of large share premium, the AO, during the entire assessment proceedings, primarily focused on the justification of high valuation of shares done

Brugg Cables (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2941/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbrugg Cables (India) P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), C/O Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Gurgaon. F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aafcb2037E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.11.2017 & Subsequently, Revised It On 05.06.2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.72,09,630/- For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reason “Exports/Imports, Claim Of Any Other Amount

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 69C

subsequently, revised it on 05.06.2018 declaring a loss of Rs.72,09,630/- for the AY 2017-18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason “Exports/Imports, claim of any other amount 2 allowable as deduction in Schedule BP”. Accordingly, notices under section ... Ward 1 (3) Gurgaon) are totally illegal, unlawful and contrary to mandate of 1961 Act being founded on non-speaking and inchoate reasons of limited scrutiny which is enlarged without taking approval from PCIT; 10.2 That Ld AO erred in passing assessment order without issue of any show cause notice

Vallabh Infra, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 910/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 910/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

filed on 27.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.17,39,690/-. The assessee is a builder. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the income from real estate business was correctly offered for tax. In the course of assessment, the AO found that the assessee had shown gross

Bhavesh Jagmalbhai Gohil, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 344/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Bhavesh Jagmalbhai Commissioner Of Income Gohil Vs. Tax (Appeals) 4, Vaibhav Bungalows, Ahmedabad Near Gulab Tower, Sola Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alqpg3761M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 57

income for A.Y. 2017-18 filed by the assessee on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.11,21,210/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the deduction against the income from other sources. In the course of assessment, the deduction of Rs.30,13,811/- claimed under Section

M/S. Kolet Resort Club Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri. T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)

assessee company filed its Return of Income for assessment year 2015-16 claiming total loss of Rs.23,02,232/-. The return was taken for limited scrutiny assessment and after calling for various details by the AO by issuing Notices u/s.143[2] of the Act. After considering replies filed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kol, Kolkata vs. Genesis Computech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1733/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, is eligible to contest on merit before the Hon'ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

return of income on 10.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2017-18 by declaring total income of ₹ 760/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the examination of two key issues. (a) Expenses relating to exempt income. (b) low income in comparison to high loans, advances and investments ... other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative argued that the Assessing Officer had made the addition beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, which was confined to examine the explanation relating to exempt income and the comparison of income with loans and investments. The Learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the assessee

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. M/S Mohamed Bagh Club Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 435/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Mohamed Bagh Club, Limited, Income Tax, Range-I, Vs. 202, M.G. Marg, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow Pan:Aaccm2600B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rohit Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 16.09.2020. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

that the assessee club filed a return declaring total income of Rs.38,91,760/- on 27.09.2014. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on account of the fact that higher turnover was reported in the service tax return as compared to the Income tax return. On account

M/S. Sultanpur Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sultanpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 647/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2015-16 M/S Sultanpur Zilla Sahkari Bank Pr. Cit, Faizabad Ltd., Near Collectorate, Allahabad Vs. Road, Civil Lines, Sultanpur, U.P. Pan:Aanas6008C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. J.L. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. J.L. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the case of the appellant for the A.Y. 2015-2016 was selected for Limited Scrutiny and the issue as to whether the Provident Fund of Rs.7.46 Crore had been deposited with the Appropriate Authority or not, was not the reasons ... selecting the case under Limited Scrutiny and as such the Ld. Assessing Officer was not required to go beyond the reasons given for the Limited Scrutiny. 3. The Ld. CIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the law that assessment order dated 20.12.2017 passed

Lakshmivaraprasada Surendranath Sai Meka, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Machilipatnam

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

ITA 99/VIZ/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.99/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lakshmi Varaprasada Vs. Income Tax Officer, Surendranath Sai Meka, Ward-1, D.No. 3-61, Kosuru, Parasupet, Machilipatnam, Kosuru Post, Movva Mandalam, Krishna District, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521002. Andhra Pradesh – 521150. Pan: Acbpm5900G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Cr Hemanth Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri CR Hemanth Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee e-filed his return of income on 24/02/2016 declaring an income of Rs. 9,43,810/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with a reason of salary income mismatch and business in large value sale of futures (derivatives). In response to the notices issued

Jastiyamini Satya Prabha, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

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

ITA 315/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.315/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Jastiyamini Satya Prabha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(3), Pan: Asepp6427G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. K. Aruna, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. K. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

return of income was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangalore and the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposit during demonetization period. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21/09/2018 and notices U/s. 142(1) were