“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

Nivesh Group, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Nivesh Group 3. The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.12,97,350/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Subsequently, the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed by the Assessing Officer on 09.07.2019 at an income of Rs.13 ... filed on 31.10.2017 u/s 139(1) vide acknowledgement no. 275525541311017 declaring an income of Rs.12,97,350/-. Subsequently, this case was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 09.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Notices

Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 164/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.164/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Keerthi Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer 3-20-14, Near Recruiting Office Ward-1(1) Pattabhipuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Abjfs1107Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 40Section 69C

No.164/Viz/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur declaring a total income of Rs.15,25,100/- for the A.Y.2018-19. The case was selected for “Complete Scrutiny” under CASS to verify excess contribution to PF and SAF. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Kaustubh Gupta, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1125/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kaustubh Gupta, 412/3, Versus Pr. C.I.T., Mangal Pandey Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut. Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Waseem Arshad, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT/DR

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

year under dispute, the assessee filed her return of income on 13.02.2018 declaring income of Rs.14,10,790/-. Assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine, inter alia, “large cash deposits compared to returned income and claim of large exempt income”. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing ... required to see the nature of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings. Undisputedly, assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny and for specifically examining the issue of “large cash deposits compared to returned income and claim of large exempt income”. In course of assessment

Late Shri Pawan Kumar L/H Smt. Nirmal Jain, Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Range-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 797/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 274

Applicant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds.” 3. The facts in brief are that during the course of complete scrutiny of the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16, the Ld. AO collected information from Allahabad Bank and found that on 21.03.2014, the assessee

Barnali Samanta, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward2(5), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JAB/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 69A

concerned, two type of cases have been selected for scrutiny in the current Financial Year- one is 'Limited Scrutiny' and other is 'Complete Scrutiny'. The assessees concerned have duly been intimated about their cases falling either in 'Limited Scrutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under section ... monetary limit shall be Rs. ten lakhs) requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then, the case may be taken up for 'Complete Scrutiny' with the approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. However, such an approval shall be accorded by the Pr. CIT/CIT in writing after being satisfied about

Sri Durgamba Primary Agricultural Co Operative Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 233/VIZ/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.233/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2021-22) Sri Durgamba Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Society Ward-2(5), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaqas 1545 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhumar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhumar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80P

wherein the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 40,53,919/- U/s. 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason ‘first year of claim of deduction U/s. 80P’. Thereafter, notices U/s. 143(2) and U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued

M/S. Odisha Coal and Power Limited., Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 116/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh B.K.Mahapatra & Sh.A.K.Sabat, CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

mentioned that the details filed by the assessee had been examined only with regard to the reasons for which the case was selected for complete scrutiny. It was the submission that it was the investment in the intangible assets that has been considered and not to the depreciation in respect

M/S Sancheti Ornaments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-NFAC CIT Appeals Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1500/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1500/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sancheti Ornaments बिधम/ Ito-Nfac/Cit (A) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. Vs. Room No.7, 2Nd Floor, 65/67 Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0110E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Ruby Shrivastava Revenue By: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,47,500/- Being Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period.

For Appellant: Ms Ruby ShrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 68

return of income on 28.12.2017 declaring total income at Rs. Nil (loss of Rs.8,888/-). Later, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. The AO noted that the assessee company was engaged in the business activity of dealing in gold jewellery. And the assessee had shown total

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Posco Engineering and Construction India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1137/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G S Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)Section 68

Government, Public and Private sector e- filed its return on 17.03.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 7,75,09,740/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notice(s) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee e-filed its replies. The Ld. Assessing

Sri Seetaramanjanenya Sortex, Kakinada vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 147/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Paradeep Tayal & OrsFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

filed it’s return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 19.09.2018 admitting total income of Rs.1,02,00,389/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under e- assessment scheme 2019, to verify duty drawback, unsecured loan and business expenses. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M/S Poornachand Agrawal, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

seen that the main thrust of arguments of the assessee is that this was a limited scrutiny case and not a Complete Scrutiny case. That, therefore, the AO was within his rights not to enquire about the Unsecured Loans. That, the AO was legally bound not to exceed his boundaries ... interesting to observe here that it is mentioned in the first para of Assessment order dated 17.02.2021 itself that this case was selected for complete scrutiny. Can there be any further arguments on this issue , then !What is more , the assessee has also not raised any doubts over the observations

M/S. Lgf Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The CIT-3, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 226/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.226/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lfg Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., The Principle Commissioner Survey No.358 At Rangpar, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Morbi-363641 Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessee for the year under consideration declared loss of Rs. 3,85,08,902/- only. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act and assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 4-12-2018 accepting

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Havells India Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2140/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Paritosh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

assessee e-filed its return for AY 2020-21 on 31.10.2020 declaring income of Rs. 737,47,72,440/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices were served upon the assessee. The assessee furnished submissions through e- portal. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) required the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

income was filed by the assessee on 08-11-2014 declaring total income at Rs. 42,45,320/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it was explained before the learned AO that provisions of Sec. 43CA were not applicable as the company

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Learned Assessing Officer was precluded from examination of any other issue as the case was selected only for "limited scrutiny" and not for complete scrutiny. The CBDT, vide Instruction F.No.225/402/ 2018 /ITA.II dated 28/11/2018 has laid down the scope of inquiry in 15 Ram Dev Chandel vs. ITO limited ... pertinent to mention that unlike CASS 2015 and 2016 cycles, where consideration of any additional issue lead to the conversion of case to ‘Complete Scrutiny’ as laid down in Instruction No. 5/2016 dated 14.07.16, the pending ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases of CASS 2017 and 2018 cycles would not be taken

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gotam Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 as compared to average rate of cash deposits

Jaydeep Construction, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the above observations

ITA 2086/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejaydeep Construction V. Pr. Cit -41 Shop No. 07/08, Patidar Complex Room No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan C-41 To C-43, G Block Kannamwar Nagar, Vikroli (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaffj0346M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 54

Pr.CIT observed that assessee is a partnership firm and is involved in real estate business. The case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed assessment of the firm u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 27.02.2021 accepting the return

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19, on 27.08.2018, declaring returned income Rs.1,24,90,210/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny to verify the issue of Transactions with Company whose Registration has been cancelled by MCA. The assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... Order 27/10/2021 4 ITA No.348/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd. 15 DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1030101465(1) ASSESSMENT ORDER 1. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S No. issues 1. Transactions with Company whose Registration has been Cancelled

Venkata Satyanarayana Dasari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 188/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kamaj Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

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

income for the AY 2017-18 on 17/10/2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 7,77,380/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that “abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period”. Thereafter, statutory notice U/s. 143(2) dated