“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

Gulabsingh Raghuwanshi HUF, Indore vs. Income Tax Office 2(5), Indore

ITA 528/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

That the return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 10/06/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,07,500/- Case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the reason Cash deposit during the demonetization period' and first notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 27/09/2018 which was served

Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT Circle 6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1328/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1327 & 1328/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Acit Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Patel Vs. 1, Shayona Darshan & Bunglow, Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ghatlodia, Acit, Circle 6(1), Gujarat – 380061 Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp1167A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R B Tank, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri R B Tank, A.RFor Respondent: 26/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 57

return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 28.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.21,08,320/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the AO found that the assessee was co-purchaser of non-agricultural land, which was acquired at total

Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1327/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri R B Tank, A.RFor Respondent: 26/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 57

Sujatha Kancharla, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1233/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

Subsequently, the case of the assessee was 3 Sujatha Kancharla, Hyderabad. selected for scrutiny assessment under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for complete scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the demonetization period, made

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2), Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

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

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

declaring total income at Rs. ‘Nil’ after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of various issues. In the course of assessment proceedings, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Sapthagiri Bankers, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3231/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 142(1)

income (RoI) for AY 2018-19 on 03.09.2018 declaring total income at Sapthagiri Bankers :: 2 :: Rs.1,37,750/-. Later, the RoI was selected for complete scrutiny and the AO made the following additions: i. Commission expenses to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs ii. Salary expenses to the tune of Rs.5

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned PCIT is hereby set aside

ITA 566/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Passed By Learned Pcit

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 263Section 41Section 90

initially declared in the original ITR. Said revised return is stated to have been selected for complete scrutiny, on the following 11 issues:- 3 ITA No. 566/JPR/2025 & SA No. 10/JPR/2025 Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota i. Double Taxation Relief u/s 90/91. ii. Stock Valuation iii. Increase ... Avoidance of double Taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion. Discussion 10. As already noticed above, case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny as regards the above mentioned 11 points, but the 6 ITA No. 566/JPR/2025 & SA No. 10/JPR/2025 Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Assessing Officer

Infoobjects Software India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

During the F.Y. 2020-21, the company has entered a number of international transactions with its Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under CASS on the reasons of large value of international transactions in services including transactions u/s. 92B(2) in comparison to revenue from

Lalita Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

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

16/01/2021, declaring total income of Rs.5,90,940/-. b) The case of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-21 was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS (Computer Assisted scrutiny Selection). 3 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO c) The reason for selection of the case for scrutiny ... assessee- appellant filed the return of income on 16/01/2021, declaring total income of Rs.5,90,940/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS (Computer Assisted scrutiny Selection) on the reason “Low income compared to large commission receipts.” Based on 19 Lalita Devi Sharma

Rohitji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2) (Previously Ward-3(3)(4)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 26/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

declaring total income of Rs.3,03,880/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA on 21.09.2018 which was served upon the assessee electronically. Further

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 293/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(2)

filing its return of income on dated 28.03.2021, which was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and various details were called for from the Assessee by issuing various statutory notices. In response to which, the Assessee filed its submissions. On consideration

Gojiya Bhikhubhai, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 612/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Id. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Id.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

30/10/2018, declaring total income of Rs.71,57,260/-, for the year under consideration. The assessee's case was selected for complete scrutiny, as in the case of assessee, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee. The assessment

Shree Samarth Electricals Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

30/10/2018, declaring total income of Rs.71,57,260/-, for the year under consideration. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, as in the case of assessee, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee. The assessment

Shree Samarth Switchgear and Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

Vimal Coal Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1446/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1446/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vimal Coal Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit 503, Addpr Aspire बनाम / Circle-4(1)(1) Near Jahanvee Restaurant V/S. Ahmedabad University Road To Panjrapole Road (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Ahmedabad - 380 009 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 4259 J Assessee By: Ms. Priyanka Sajnani, Ar On Behalf Of Shri Sunil Maloo, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 10.06.2024 For The

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Sajnani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 135Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)Section 80G(5)

filed its return of income on 31.12.2020 declaring a total income of Rs.27,60,08,710/-. The return was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of large deduction claimed under section 80G where the donee's approval status was in question. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Pudumjee Paper Products Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 336/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35(1)

return processed u/s.143(1)(a) 3 Pudumjee Paper Products Ltd. of the Act before ld.CIT(A). Subsequently, case of the assessee selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and the reasons for selection were (1) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, claim of large value

Satyendranath Bose Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2339/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Satyendranath Bose Educational Vs Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata & Social Welfare Trust, 19/2/5, Amar Chakraborthy Rd. Ac Road Khagra, Berhampur-742103 Pan No. : Aaots 9288 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.09.2024, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Denying The Benefit Of Exemption Claimed U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Failed To Correctly Appreciate That The Assessee Was Indeed Maintaining & Aiding Education Institutions & It Existed Solely For Educational Purposes Without Any Motive For Profit & Since Its Annual Receipts Did Not Exceed The Limit Of Rs.1 Crores, It Had Rightly Claimed Exemption U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR

Section 10Section 250

Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring income at Rs.Nil. The case was taken for complete scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issue and served on the assessee. The assessee is running a school in the name and style of Berahampore Polytechnic College

Pappathi, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 537/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:537/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pappathi, Ito, No.7/26, Raja Street Vs. Ward 2, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai – 614 616. Pudukkottai – 614 616. [Pan: Akgpp-6709-H] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Ms. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 12.10.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.3,11,420/-. The case was selected for COMPLETE scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason that “Large cash deposit during demonetisation period and abnormal increase in Sales and decrease in profitability as compared to preceding previous

Yeshwanth Kumar, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Hosur

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

ITA 533/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

individual filed his return of income for AY 2020-21 on 31.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.7,430/- . The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that in the previous years the assessee has declared large increase in agricultural income

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

assessee filed his return of income on 27.10.2018, declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under