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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

V S Abdul Salam, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(4) & Tps, Kochi

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

ITA 611/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Alan Dev, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 69

filed his returns for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 28.12.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.4,48,250/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the issue identified is 'Large investment in property compared to total income'. The issue flagged by CASS scrutiny relates

Gangapura Nagaraja Iyer Srinivasa, Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result we find that the order of the AO disallowing the purchase

ITA 640/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 44A

assessee had incurred labour charges. The assessee filed his return of income on 28.09.2014. The return was processed and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 31.08.2014 and thereafter notice under Section

Pankaj Prashant Sinha, Thane vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 3(2) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1728/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order. Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal For Non Prosecution.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 04.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 6,01,820/-. Subsequently, the return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine large value of import shown in the export import data. Statutory notices

Samata Nagari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samata Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward- 14(5), Pune. Patsanshta Maryadit, Prasanna Residency, At & Post Nira, Tal- Purandar, Dist. Pune- 412102. Pan : Aabas5442E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Pcit, Pune-4 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Pcit Erred In Initiating Action U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act Even Though The Assessing Officer'S Assessment Order Under Sec 143 (3) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & Ignoring The Order Of The Jurisdictional Hon'Ble Pune

For Appellant: Shri Mukund BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowances u/s 36 of the IT Act as there was difference in Schedule Part A-OI, Sl. No.6. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Investments/Advances/Loans, and Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VIA”. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) 3 r.w.s

Madan Lal Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 717/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(3)Section 69C

assessee e-filed his return of income on 23-03-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 4,47,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 09-08-2018 fixing the hearing ... freelancer. II. Original e-return was filed on 23.03.2018 declaring a Total Income of Rs. 4,47,510. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018. III. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 05.11.2019 at a Total

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 751/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykanala Subramanyam The Income Tax Officer No. 58/1, 8Th Cross, 12Th Main Ward - 5(2)(5), Bengaluru Raghavendra Block Vs. Srinagar, Bengaluru 560050 Pan – Bryps2091H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1062689536(1) Dated 15.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Is Highly Unjust, Arbitrary & Contrary To Law & The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Banking Transaction Of The Appellant During F.Y. 2016-17 Were In The Normal Course Of The Appellant'S Business Activities & That The Cash Deposits To His Bank Account

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

return of Income on 31/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 12,71,060/-. 3 Kanala Subramanyam Subsequently the assessee case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “cash deposit during the year”. Accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 18/09/2018 was duly served within

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

ITA 1052/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 251Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

therefore, the said enhanced income of Rs. 5,04,19,074 liable to be deleted. 2. Since the case has been selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS to verify deduction under Chapter-VI-A and cash withdrawals, the National Faceless Appeal Centre has acted contrary to the Circular ... after claiming deduction of Rs. 2,13,27,673/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify deductions under Ch. VI-A and cash withdrawals. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 and duly served

Late Krishnakumar Raghunath Koli, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1836/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: your honour for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) for the aforesaid assessment year. It appears that the said order has been received by the appellant on 12 June 2023 i.e. the date of the order passed by the CIT(A).

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69C

income on 30/09/2013 declaring income of Rs.7,84,217/-. The said return was duly processed u/s.143(1). Later on, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS for two reasons firstly, large commission expenses and secondly, low net profit which has been mentioned in para ... completed at Rs.50,26,120/- after making correct addition of Rs.48,41,904/-. 6. First of all, once the case has been selected of limited scrutiny for two reasons, and then ld. AO could not have expanded the scope of CASS by making the addition on other items of balance

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Singapore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1711/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

vide order dated 09.03.2023 had quashed the revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that as the assessment was a limited scrutiny on the issue of examining outward foreign remittance, the ld. CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke revisionary powers on issues which were not subject ... matter of limited scrutiny. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 19.01.2024 had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous for the reason that as the Tribunal had set aside the revisionary order, the consequential assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act herein

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

vide order dated 09.03.2023 had quashed the revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that as the assessment was a limited scrutiny on the issue of examining outward foreign remittance, the ld. CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke revisionary powers on issues which were not subject ... matter of limited scrutiny. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 19.01.2024 had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous for the reason that as the Tribunal had set aside the revisionary order, the consequential assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act herein

Muroor Ramesh Nayak, Sullia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1098/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavmuroor Ramesh Nayak The Income Tax Officer 1/1, Muroor Beejathadka Ward - 1, Puttur Vs. Mandekolu, Sullia Tq. 574256 Pan – Ajjpn9644H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1064225940(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Fact Of The Case That That The Assessee, An Individual, Prior To His Retirement, Was An Employee Of Forest Department. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Year On 31.03.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,88,170/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetisation Period. 3. During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee While Attending The Proceedings, Filed A Written Reply Explaining The Source Of Cash Deposits. However, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Agree With The Replies Of The Assessee & Added An Amount Of Rs.11,00,000/- To The Returned Income.

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 250(6)

return of income for the impugned year on 31.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.2,88,170/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in order to verify the source of cash deposited during the demonetisation period. 3. During the assessment proceedings the assessee while attending the proceedings

Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs.4,37,090/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,83,000/-. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO gathered information u/s.133(6) of the Act, regarding cash deposits from Karur Vysya

Patchirajan Lakshmanan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons : (i) interest expenses (ii) sales turnover mismatch :-4-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 (iii) sundry creditors (iv) increase in capital (v) deduction claimed under the head capital gains

Bhadraiah Kallenahalli Dinesha, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mandya

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

ITA 231/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 57

gross receipts and claimed expenditure of Rs.5,75,20,327/- u/s. 57 of the act. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) of the act was issued calling for various information and details

Sameer Esmail Mohiyudin, Kurla (W), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 53/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R
Section 144Section 250

short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In the instant case, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny qua capital gain/loss on sale of property. On 2 Mr. Sameer Esmail Mohiyudin perusing the details filed, it was observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that

Janta Adarsh Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3693/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 2(19)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- [i]. Deductions from income from other sources; [ii]. Investments/Advances/Loans; and [iii]. Deduction from total income under Chapter

The Janta Adarsh Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3692/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 2(19)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- [i]. Deductions from income from other sources; [ii]. Investments/Advances/Loans; and [iii]. Deduction from total income under Chapter

Veena Shah, Panipat vs. Pr CIT, Rohtak

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1222/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

appellant/assessee filed her Income Tax Return [In Short, the ‘ITR’], on 10.07.2018 declaring income of Rs.11,01,090/-. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny on the issues of ‘income from Other Sources’ and ‘Refund Claim’. During the relevant year, the appellant/assessee received interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.7

Banur Brother, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-1, Ambala

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

declaring business income at Rs. 62,860/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT. Act, 1961. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify:- "Aggregate of high cash withdrawals by the assessee during the year under consideration i.e. higher than the profit interest and taxed ... Notice u/s 143(2) of the IT. Act, 1961 was issued in your case on 13.08.2018 as your case was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith query letter was issued on 13.05.2019 vide which you were required to furnish

Paragkumar Dipakkumar Khamar, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 232/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144

impugned assessment year on 14th March, 2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,64,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer , but there was no compliance