← All Phrases

“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
42
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
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.

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
35
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
21
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
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.

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
13
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
11
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
11
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

Shankare Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Mohit Ashok Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

revised return of income on 20.10.2018 by declaring total income of Rs.13,88,75,354/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the issue “Reduction of income in revised return and claim of refund”. The AO served notice u/s 143(2) as well

Harish Ramchandra Joshi(HUF), Hubli vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Hubli

The appeal are allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

individual, who filed his return of income on 19.3.2018 at a total income of Rs.1,50,64,500/-. The return was picked up for complete scrutiny for verifying large cash deposits and large agricultural income. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.9.2018 calling for various details

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Anant Commodities Pvt Ltd, Indore

ITA 857/IND/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

assessee had filed its Return of Income showing total income of Rs.16,38,620/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS mainly on the basis of (1) Capital Gain loss on the sale of property and (2) Foreign remittance. The assessee company is engaged ... fact rejected the books of accounts of the assessee company. That the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. The “conclusion” of Ld. A.O in the "impugned assessment order” was relied upon in support of appeal of the Revenue and it was finally prayed that the "impugned order

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

declaring total Income of Rs. 34,08,680/- Further, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under "Complete Scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T Act, 1961 was issued on 09.08.2018 through ITBA- portal which was duly served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore

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

ITA 1679/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

builders & developers, filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 at a total income of Rs.1,98,12,669/-. The return was picked up for complete scrutiny to examine the income from real estate business and default in TDS. 3. Assessee firm was incorporated on 1.1.2010 with the main object

M/S. Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1240/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

builders & developers, filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 at a total income of Rs.1,98,12,669/-. The return was picked up for complete scrutiny to examine the income from real estate business and default in TDS. 3. Assessee firm was incorporated on 1.1.2010 with the main object

M/S Chhanabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)), Surat

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

ITA 757/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 41(1)Section 68

assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 16.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.90,63,409/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and in response to the notices issued by the AO, the assessee filed various submissions and details. The assessee had shown current liabilities

Dhanalakshmi Textade India Pvt Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 233/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 270A

income for the AY 2018-19 on 12/10/2018 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,08,570/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 22/09/2019 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notices

ITO, Ward - 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Gayatri Cottex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 688/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Bavishi, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 57

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 declaring income of Rs. 13,76,71,580/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment various additions were made by the Assessing Officer and the assessment was completed under Section

Shivashish Foundation Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT(OSD), Circle-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1003/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble**

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80G(5)

Ahmedabad. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on on 22.10.2017 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time, including revised notices under

Star Organic Foods Inc, Nellore vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 715/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, T Ram PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 69A

assessment year 2018-2019, declaring a 2 ITA.No.715/Hyd./2025 loss of Rs.2,28,01,462/-. The case has been taken-up for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 143(2) dated 28.09.2019 and subsequent notice under section 142(1) of the Act on various dates has been issued

Ankur Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ankur Dealcom Private Limited Pcit, Room No. 302 & 303, Sikkim Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Commerce House, 4/1, Middleton Chowringhee Square, Vs. Street, Kolkata-700071, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2847F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

instruction, the notice u/s 143(2) has to be in any of the three formats namely; (i) Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (ii) Complete Scrutiny (computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) and (iii) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny. Since, the notice has been issued in an invalid format which is obviously invalid ... assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note on benefits & Procedures of 'EProceeding' facility

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Ors HUF, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ashok Kumar Agarwal & Ors Huf Acit, Circle 34, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd 110, Shanti Pally, 7 Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeha8352F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

page no. 36 of the Paper Book, specifies only computer aided scrutiny selection which neither mentioned it either to be a limited or a complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said notice has been issued in violation of the instruction issued by CBDT as noted above

Virutcham Micro Finance Ltd., Madurai vs. ITO, Corp. Circle.2, Madurai

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

ITA 1313/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1313/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Virutcham Micro Finance Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C-50, Gurudev Nagar, Avaniyapuram Income Tax, Bypass Road, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aaccv9529Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 16.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. Further, On Perusal Of The Record, We Find That The Notice Issued On 18.06.2025 Returned

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 115JSection 4Section 68

under normal provisions and deemed income of ₹.21,17,239/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and issued statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. On verification of the details filed by the assessee in response to various

Kongu Welfare Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1298/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1298/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kongu Welfare Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.2/1, Vijayapuram Iind Street, Exemptions Ward 1, Chinnasalem – Tk, Villipuram, Chennai. Villupuram 606 201. [Pan:Aactk2793E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mudit Bohra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Bohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The return was selected for complete scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. The assessee has reported voluntary contribution forming part of corpus

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Che-C(1)-251, Nungambakkam, Chennai

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

ITA 1138/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1138/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Prasanna Varma, F.C.A & MrFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

account of PF and ESI u/s. 36(1)(va). Finally, the income was assessed at Rs.458.48 Crs. Subsequently, the case was taken up for complete scrutiny and the Ld.AO passed order u/s 143(3) on 09.09.2022. In the impugned order, the Ld.AO did not make any fresh additions but merely

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Patdiam Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. D.R
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 250

Patdiam Jewels 2. In the instant case, the case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the following issue: “Exemption for undertaking in FTZ/SEZ (section 10A & 10AA)”. 2.1 Consequently, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Anil Kumar Bhakkar, Delhi

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

ITA 4769/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar Bhakkar, New Delhi. E – 99 – B, Mansarover Garden, Delhi – 110 015. (Pan : Aampb0474B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.9,65,820/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Based On The Information Available With The Revenue That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Substantial Amount As Compared

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 68

case are, assessee filed its return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs.9,65,820/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Based on the information available with the Revenue that assessee has deposited cash of substantial amount as compared 2 to returned income during demonetization

C-2573 Dhamalerimuthur Paccs Ltd., Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 1035/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1035/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 C-2573 Dhamalerimuthur Paccs Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 188/2, Dhamalerimuthur, Ward 1, Tirupattur, 635 853. Vellore. [Pan:Aabad1030D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jainendar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under 2

For Appellant: Shri Jainendar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80P(2)(c)

case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹.0. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 was issued on the assessee. Various notices under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hospet vs. Gayatri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Hospet

ITA 1078/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

return was then processed & intimation u/s 143(1) was also passed. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS as complete Scrutiny. The AO completed the assessment proceedings vide order dated 27/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act with the following observations/ additions/disallowances- i) The entity has been