“complete scrutiny”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)2,579 judgments

The decision most relied on for complete scrutiny is Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT (237 ITR 70), cited in 42 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on complete scrutiny

Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT

237 ITR 70 · 1999 · High Court

citing judgments

A restraint order under Section 132(3) cannot be passed solely on the ground that scrutiny of documents or assets could not be completed during a search, as the search process must be continuous. Additionally, Section 158BC (Chapter XIV-B) cannot be invoked if there is no violation of the Income-tax Act, such as when valid exemptions are claimed.

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.

70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)

101 ITD 495 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct necessary inquiries or investigate facts when circumstances warrant it, demonstrating a lack of complete scrutiny. This failure to act as an investigator and not just an adjudicator can trigger revision under Section 263.

ITO v. V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd.

113 Taxmann.com 31 · 2020 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Share capital and share premium cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, especially when cash did not pass at any stage and entries made a complete round. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against this view.

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.

2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

253 ITR 124 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

A revisionary order under Section 263 is invalid if it is based on the same facts and involves extensive enquiry after the assessment proceedings were completed, implying a lack of application of mind during the original assessment.

Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. v. DCIT

131 CTR 203 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

The Project Completion Method (PCM) for accounting is a recognized and scientifically sound method that has judicial approval for real estate businesses, allowing profit or loss to be recognized only upon project completion.

CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties

247 ITR 555 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

A Principal Commissioner (PCIT) cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer's (AO) view is not acceptable, if the AO has made due enquiries and taken a plausible view.

Judgments citing complete scrutiny

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 444/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 444/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Raghu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer Renewable Energy Ltd, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccr0908F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.7.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Not Condoning The Delay Of 549 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,32,624/-

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raj Kumar, DR

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

which has been carried forward as per schedule CFL of the ITR. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the following issues: i) Investments/Advances/Loans ii) Business Loss 4. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee in response

Periyaputhur Senniappan Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1586/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1584, 1585 & 1586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. After considering the details furnished by the Assessing Officer against statutory notices, the assessment was completed under section

Periyaputhur Senniappan Saravanakumr, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1585/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1584, 1585 & 1586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Periyaputhur Senniappan Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1584/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1584, 1585 & 1586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Presidency Kid Leather Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1524/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1524/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154

income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 2 I.T.A. No.1524/Chny/23 29.03.2012 admitting total income of ₹.46,24,963/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. After considering the details furnished by the Assessing Officer against statutory notices, the assessment was completed under section

M/S. Mahima Fibres Private Limited, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 163/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahima Fibres Private Ltd. Pr. Cit, 406, Corporate House, Rnt Indore -1 Marg Vs. Indore -452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccm4603N Assessee By Shri Manoj Gupta & Pankaj Shah Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

under CASS as the AO has mentioned the issue in para 1 of the assessment order as under: “1. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- - S. No. Issues i. Duty Drawback ii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter

Santhome Charitable Society, Chennai vs. The ITO Exemptions, Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 613/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.613/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Santhome Charitable Society, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalaivanar Nagar, Athipet, Ambattur, Exemptions Ward-3, Tamil Nadu 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Aabts1184L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 17.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society Is Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

excluding depreciation) towards revenue expenditure and an amount of ₹.11,92,185/- towards capital expenditure. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 05.09.2017. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 29.05.2018 was also issued

Darshan Construction, Byculla vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3502/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 269SSection 43C

mismatch in sale turnover reported in Audited report and ITR. The PCIT is of the view that the AO should reopen the case for complete scrutiny, specifically on the reasons mentioned in para nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the PCIT order dated 26.02.2019. It is very strange ... could reach at a decision to convert the limited scrutiny case into the complete scrutiny case if he is not allowed to look beyond the reasons for limited scrutiny during the assessment proceedings. It is also very important to note that the Ld. PCIT himself stated that the issues

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 271/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.271/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 26-9-28, Wood Yard Street Ward-1(5) Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanas1911Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR)For Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

declaring an income of Rs.5,05,655/- under the head ‘income from business or profession’. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessment order dated 02.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,44,820/- on 30/12/2017 which was selected for complete scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued. Thereafter taking into consideration the submission filed by the assessee

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा

Sayaji Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3403/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 250

return of income on 30/10/2018 declaring a loss of Rs. 15,41,36,693. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Grass Valley India Private Limited, Noida

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

ITA 2796/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Misra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

assessee filed e-return declaring taxable income at ‘NIL’ for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in question. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that assessee has provided part details. A show cause notice dated

Panna Lal Om Prakash Jewellers, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Astha Chandrapanna Lal Om Prakash Jewellers, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. Anil Jain Dd &Co. 611, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kg Marg, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp4412F

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

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

assessee derived income from business and income from other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.08.2018 followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 02.07.2019. The assessee in response

Nanjappa Gounder Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

return was processed under 143(1)(a) of the Act on 27.02.2019. The case was, subsequently selected for complete scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the issue, namely reduction of income in Revised Return and claim of refund and income from other sources. The Ld. Assessing Officer

Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19 Gsp Crop Science Pvt.Ltd. The Principal Cit, 404, Lalita Complex Vs Ahmedabad-1 Rasal Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad – 380 009, Gujarat Pan: Aaacg 7984 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms.Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1. [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Holding That Rs.9,98,678/- Is Required To Be Disallowed U/S 14A Of The Act. Gsp Crop Science Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 80J

assessee filed return of income for AY 2018-19 on 31/10/2018 declaring total loss of Rs.22,80,49,617/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issues, such as, expenditure of personal nature, refund claim, duty draw-back, ICDS compliance & adjustment, deduction on account of donation for scientific

Konapati Venkatesulu Naidu, Chittoor vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 666/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 07/04/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 17,20,190/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for reason “Cash Deposit (Demonetisation)”. Learned Assessing Officer, by order dated 07/12/2019 under section 143(3) of the Income

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-28/Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22Section 32

arrived at his findings to hold that case of the assessee was of return processed u/s. 143(1) and not a complete scrutiny assessment wherein none of the issues noted in the reasons to believe were considered. Thus, he disregrded the theory of change of opinion contested by the assessee

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

deemed total income of Rs. NIL u/s. 115JC of the Act. Its case was picked up for complete scrutiny through CASS. Hence, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019 which was duly served upon the assessee through ITBA. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised computation