“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

Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Meerut vs. ITO Ward (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 5606/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Vs. Ito Meerut -250001 Ward (Exemption) Pan No. Aaatu3244J Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 144B

return of income for AY 2019-20 on 25-09-2019 declaring total income Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under compulsory criteria for the reason that registration u/s 12A has been withdrawn. The AO completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.3

Mahatma Phule Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 321/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.321/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Mahatma Phule Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Patsanstha Ahilyanagar. Maryadit, At Post Bhingar, Nagar – Pathardi Road, Dist. Ahilyanagar- 414002. Pan : Aaaam3703B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. There Is Delay Of 79 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Haring

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.82,64,267/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

D. E. Shaw India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, SR-DR

Section 143(3)

Income (“ROI”) for A.Y. 2020-21 declaring total income at Rs.98,52,22,230/- on 07.01.2021. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and in view of the international transactions involved during the year under consideration, for determination of Arm’s Length Price

Om Prakash Jaiswal, Kharagpur vs. ITO, Ward 39(2), Midnapur

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

ITA 1468/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250

which is avail- able at page no.1 to 4 of the Paper Book, did not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued 4 Om Prakash Jaiswal specific instruction vide instruction ... other hand submitted that this is a com- puter-generated notice and non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would not render the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee

Augmont Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3096/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanaugmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-6(1)(2), 201, A/B & 202, 2Nd Floor, Trade Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar World, D-Wing, Kamala Mills Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Compound, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 003. Pan: Aagcr3007D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 41Section 80G

under:- Augmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 16. Now the question before this Tribunal is whether the AO is required to conduct an enquiry during the complete scrutiny assessment with regard to issue which is no more res integra and has been settled by various ITAT Tribunals including Jurisdictional Tribunal. The issue ... even consider it in the scrutiny assessment under CASS and for that reason, the AO has not enquired during the complete scrutiny assessment with respect to the CSR expenditure as eligible deduction because only the following four issues were raised in the complete scrutiny assessment as mentioned in para

Chemical Process Piping Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2953/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Chemical Process Piping Pcit, Mumbai-6, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R. No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, B.S.D. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 Govandi, Mumbai-400 088 020 Pan: Aaccc6212D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi & Shri Harshad Shah, Ld. Ars Department Represented By : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

case are reproduced as under:- 16. Now the question before this Tribunal is whether the AO is required to conduct an enquiry during the complete scrutiny assessment with regard to issue which is no more res integra and has been settled by various ITAT Tribunals including Jurisdictional Tribunal. The issue ... even consider it in the scrutiny assessment under CASS and for that reason, the AO has not enquired during the complete scrutiny assessment with respect to the CSR expenditure as eligible deduction because only the following four issues were raised in the complete scrutiny assessment as mentioned in para

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) Delhi-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

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

Rs.17,09,20,004/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 was served upon the assessee followed by notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2 Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1868/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

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

Delhi vs. Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5583/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-29, I-45, Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. Vs. Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059. Pan:Aajcs4890G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Batra, Adv. & Shri Kailash Khemani, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 In Appeal No. 08/10437/2019-20 Dated 25.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.10.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,35,580/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.98,00,000/- In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) In Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings, Details Have Been Asked For Time To Time & The Assessing Officer Has Issued Summons To The Parties To Whom Sales Stated To Have Been Made In Cash. Since, Most Of The Parties Has Not Responded To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer, He Was Of The Opinion That Cash Deposited During

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

filed its return of income on 23.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.4,35,580/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.98,00,000/- in specified bank notes (SBN) in Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. During the course of the assessment proceedings ... Delhi. It filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 4,35,580/- for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetisation period." 3. During the period 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the assessee

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

business of purchase and sale of liquor and he had filed the return for A.Y. 2016-17. The return was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with the reason “low income from TCS receipts”. The assessment was made at the total income of ₹ 5,39,632/- after making an addition

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow

ITA 804/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer-6(2)

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

investigation to ascertain its sources and assess the income of the assessee correctly, the approval for conversion of the case from limited to complete scrutiny was obtained from the competent authority. Thereafter, a detailed query letter along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2017 was issued

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 593/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee e-filed its return of income on 30.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Form 10 filed after due date and large amount accumulation or set apart u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act.” Statutory notice

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

organizing races, filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.4,41,27,350/-. Later on the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.09.2021 was issued and served to the assessee. Subsequently, other statutory notices

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Mysore

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

ITA 694/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

Fusion Granito Private Limited, Morbi vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

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

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

income for assessment year (AY) 2018-19, on 21.09.2018, declaring loss of Rs.4,33,27,151/-. Thereafter, the assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the reasons to verify the following Viz: (i) introduction of large capital or share capital in the year of incorporation

M/S Stanford Developers, Neemrana Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Behror

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

income at NIL. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was 3 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. selected for Complete scrutiny as per norms under the 'CASS' on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Income from Real Estate Business ii. Share Capital/Other Capital

Amara Raja Power Systems Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

ITA 790/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

income for A.Y. 2020-21, declaring an income of Rs. 35,78,29,240/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny (CASS) under the E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 on certain issues, viz. (i). stock valuation; (ii). refund claim ICDS; (iii). compliance and adjustment; (iv) investment ... assessee') filed return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 on 28.11.2020 declaring a total income of Rs.35,78,29,240/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. The NaFAC completed the assessment u/s.143(3) rws 144B on 26.09.2022 determining the Income at Rs.40,62,93,856/-. 2. Nevertheless, on examination

Vijayanand Nithyanand, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 488/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.488/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Vijayanand Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Chittoor. Nithyananad, Chittoor. Pan:Aedpn7704H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri L. Damodara, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Vijayanand Nithyanand (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Gurugram, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 28.01.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri L. Damodara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

return of income for AY 2017–18 on 29.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,65,350/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income