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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Vivek Prahladbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(10), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vivek Prahladbhai Patel The Income Tax Officer, B-302, Balaji Greens, Vs Ward-4(1)(10), B/H Sitaram Complex, Chhani- Vadodara Canal, Vadodara-391740 Gujarat Pan: Babpp7859 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Visakapatnam (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”), Dated 5-1-2024, For The Assessment Year2017-18, Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”). Vivek Prahladbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 69A

assessee filed his return of income on 12.8.2017 declaring total taxable income of Rs. 6,49,001/-.. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS as during the period of demonetization, the assessee made substantial cash deposits in his bank account amounting

Paisafund Gramin Bigar Steti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Surli, Satara vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 749/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.749/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2018-19 Paisafund Gramin Bigar Sheti Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Satara Surli, At Post Surli, Karad, Satara – 415 110 Maharashtra Pan : Aagap3077R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

filed on 01.10.2018 declaring Nil after claiming deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act of Rs.27,45,026/-. 2 The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019. Subsequently, the case was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ under CASS. Statutory notices were served on the assessee

Purnachandra Rao Mandava, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 52/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purnachandra Rao Mandava Vs. Income Tax Officer Ambica Street, Powerpet Ward-2 Eluru Eluru [Pan : Aizpm5102C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

A.Y.2017-18 Purnachandra Rao Mandava, Eluru for the A.Y.2017-18 on 27.03.2018 by admitting total income of Rs.4,07,470/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine cash deposits during demonetization period. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Kommuru Narasimha Rao(HUF), Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 48/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.48/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kommuru Narasimha Rao (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.29-28-21, Dasari Vari Street Ward-2(2) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aalhk1984Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

case are that the assessee HUF filed its return income, admitting total income of Rs.7,20,600/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the reasons of “cash deposit during demonetization period” and statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Aghpm 1625 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ramprasad Tnssjms, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri Ramprasad TNSSJMS, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

original return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 8/8/2017 declaring an income of Rs. 3,72,970/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘large value cash deposits during the demonetization period as compared to return income”. Subsequently, notice

Rajendra Sharma, Ujjain vs. CIT (A), Ujjain

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 375/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Sharma, Ito, A-25/12, Vasant Vihar, Ward-2(3), बनाम/ Indore Road, Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ahcps4766Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2024

Section 143(3)

Rajendra Sharma ITA No. 375/Ind/2023 – AY 2016-17 agricultural income of Rs. 6,40,000/-. The return was selected under CASS for “Limited scrutiny” to verify “Large cash deposit in savings bank account(s)”. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment-order u/s 143(3) after determining total income

Chandraprabha, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-1, Puducherry

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 681/CHNY/2024[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.681/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

income for AY 2017-18 on 17/07/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,08,070, The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verity large value of cash deposit during demonetization period' and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued time to time

Bajaj Capital Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2598/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bajaj Capital Ltd., Vs Acit, 97, Bajaj House, Nehru Place, Circle-4(2), South Delhi, New Delhi-110019. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacb1006E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2017, declaring total income at loss of INR 6,21,94,083/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (“CASS”) assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was framed vide

Avid Apparels Inds., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above

ITA 4563/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Return (In short, the ‘ITR’) for the relevant year on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. 14,51,040/-. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny and the consequential assessment was done at income of Rs. 57,72,520/- by making disallowance of (i) EPF and ESI of Rs.14

Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed, and the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted

ITA 252/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain The Income Tax Officer 1 Bharatnagar Society, Vs Ward-1(2)(1), Sahapur Dudheshwar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380004 Gujarat Pan: Aprpj3999P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinit Mundra, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19-12- 2023 Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”, Which Dismissed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Adding Cash Deposits In The Bank During The Demonetization Period As Unexplained Cash Under Section 68 R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred A “The Act”) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of The Appeal: Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mundra, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 3,03,940/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. A notice u/s 143(2) and 1432(1) was sent to the assessee who filed the replies online using e-filing portal

Pritesh Lalitbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 674/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17 Pritesh Lalitbhai Pandya Income Tax Officer, Vs B/15, Krushnvila Bungalows, Ward-3(2)(9), Nr. Radhanagar Society, Isanpur Road, Ahmedabad Jamalpur Road, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad-382450 Pan : Bxwpp 8078 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

declaring total income at Rs.3,66,380/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 17.11.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17.07.2017 which was duly served on the assessee through e-filing portal

Ramling Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Ahmednagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar, Ahemdnagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.726 To 728/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade
Section 144Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 25.10.2017 declaring Nil after claiming deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices were served on the assessee. In absence of any response coming forth from the side

Ramling Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Ahmednagara vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 727/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.726 To 728/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade
Section 144Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 25.10.2017 declaring Nil after claiming deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices were served on the assessee. In absence of any response coming forth from the side

Ramling Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Ahmednagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar, Ahemdnagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 726/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.726 To 728/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade
Section 144Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 25.10.2017 declaring Nil after claiming deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices were served on the assessee. In absence of any response coming forth from the side

Manish Goyal, Bhopal vs. DCIT-ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimanish Goyal Acit 2(1) G-2, Plot No.110 G-2, Plot Bhopal No.110 Kolar Road, Sarvadham Vs. Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aefpg 2251J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2024

Section 142(1)

individual and filed his return of income on 14.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,90,040/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny with the reason “substantial increase in capital” during the year. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) and asked

Gangaur Exports Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

ITA 362/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 5Section 80GSection 80I

Gangaur Exports Private Ltd. vs. PCIT-2 also engaged in the trading of handicraft items.The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Refund Claim ii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter ... bench of this tribunal in the case of Annu Agrotech Private Limited in ITA NO. 09/JP/2021 already taken a view that in case of limited scrutiny, scope of examination 17 Gangaur Exports Private Ltd. vs. PCIT-2 of the AO is restricted towards the reasons for which the case

Tyro India, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(3)(2) Now Transferred to 41(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in connection with scope of scrutiny assessment by a) Wrongly converting the limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny without appropriate approval b) Wrongly exceeding scope of Limited Scrutiny as can be seen at last page of assessment order ... without granting a physical hearing through Video Conferencing. [B] Relief Prayed The appellant therefore prays as follows, 1. To quash the order passed exceeding limited scrutiny and without issuing a show cause 2. To delete the disallowance of bonus of Rs. 97,97,855/- 3. To delete the initiation

ACIT Circle-36(1), New Delhi vs. Himanshu Garg, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 54BSection 54F

assessee declared total income of Rs.92,71,320/- in the return of income filed on 30.11.2014 and the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of large deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, large value sale consideration of property and cash deposits. 5. During

Sh. Raj Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -3, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 226/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for examining cash deposits during the course of demonetization. Thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and submissions

Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 629/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Income Tax Officer Sadhu Vaswani Mansion, Vs Ward 1(3)(1), Mirghawad, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380002 Gujarat Pan: Aljpp2059A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Dated 01.08.2023, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Wherein The Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) As Per The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act".

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

assessment made by the Assessing Officer on the issues other than the issues for which notice u/s 143(2) was issued under CASS for limited scrutiny. 2. The Ld. NFAC-CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that family settlement/arrangements are not transfer and, therefore, gift ... assessment made by AO on the issues other than the issues for which notice u/s 143(2) was issued under CASS for limited scrutiny. The counsel for the assessee stated that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to verify the investment in immovable property but the notice