“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

Surbhi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 59,33,000/- on 26.12.2016. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and consequently, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 29.07.2016 which was got served upon the assessee through registered post ... dishonored or whether actually cash payment has been made attracting provisions of 40A(3). Thus, even though the case was selected for complete scrutiny, the A.O. failed to examine this issue in detail. 7 Surbhi Agarwal vs. ITO 6.1 Consequentially, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income

Shri Trimbakeshwar De vs. Than Trust, Nashikvs.CIT (Exemption) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1051/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

trust filed the return of income 3 Shri Trimbakeshwar Devsthan Trust declaring total income of Rs.2,23,71,234/-. Subsequently, the case selected for complete scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were issued and duly served upon the assessee calling to furnish the details to which necessary compliance made

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1569/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)

processed u/s.143(1) by CPC on 28.03.2021 and the returned loss was reduced to Rs.5748,34,43,392/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under E-Assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues: :-3-: ITA. No:1569/Chny/2024 - Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule

M/S. Gold Palace Jewellers, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2159/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee firm filed its return of income on 29.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.24,89,750/-. The case was there after taken up for complete scrutiny under CASS. The only issue that arose during the course of assessment proceedings is the source of cash deposited during the period of demonetization

ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi vs. Nav Bharat Trading Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7548/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Maneesh Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

case are that the assessee filed its return of Income on 30.11.2015 declaring an income of Rs. 13,71,270/. Return was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. The assessee is in the business as a dealer

Ikbalbhai Abdulgani Pocha, Shahera, Panchmahal, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Godhra, Income Tax Office, Civil Line Godhra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

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

assessee has shown income under the head business or profession and income under the head other sources. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2018 which was duly served upon the assessed

Sabapathi Ramesh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 2490/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, C.AFor Respondent: Ms T.M.Suganthamala, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 80C

Assessee filed return of income for the AY 2017-18 admitting an income of Rs.3,96,920/-. The case has been selected for complete scrutiny under CASS in order to verify ‘cash deposits during demonetisation period’. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

time of hearing.” 6. Succinctly put, the facts as culled out of the records are that the case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on Exports/Imports issue. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income ... perusal of the order appealed against, it is observed that the case of the appellant was selected for complete scrutiny for the A.Y.2018-19. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s.143(2) and u/s.142(1) of the IT Act were issued and duly served on the appellant requesting the appellant to furnish the required

Orion India Systems Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. PCIT, Mumbai-Six Circle Fifteen (One)(One)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Khevana GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 50B(1)Section 92C

facts as noted above. 6. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that the return of income filed by it was selected for complete scrutiny under the CASS on the following issues: - i. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default ii. International Related Party Transactions in Services iii. Default ... proceedings and no notice on this aspect was issued despite the fact that the return of income filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. Thus, the learned DR submitted that there was no formulation of any opinion 6 by the AO on this aspect and there

Nikhil Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalnikhil Sharma, 6, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur–302001. Pan No.: Bijps 2623B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-1(3), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139Section 194HSection 201Section 250Section 40Section 9

selling products on e- commerce platforms like Amazon, Flipkart and Snapdeal etc. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for complete scrutiny for the reason “Large Commission Expenses and Low Net Profit”. During the year under consideration the assessee filed his return of income

P. Subramani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cricle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 68

year 2016-17, the assessee filed his return of income on 02.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.83,91,200/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee calling for information and details. The assessee submitted the details and documents

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

facts of the case as emerges from the assessment order dated 29-09-2021 are that the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme on the following issue:- (i) Case is pertaining to survey u/s 133A of the Income ... Rs.83,70,380/- after offering the above additional income as business income for taxation. Thus the case of the assessee was selected for ‘’Complete Scrutiny ‘’ on the issue that case is pertaining to survey us/ 133A of the Act.’ In this case, notice

Finova Capital Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 263

return of income on 02.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,86,42,770/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 to verify the following issues: i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as deduction in Schedule

Autonomy Homes P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2899/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2896/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 2899/Del/2023:Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Autonomy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 310-A, Plot No. 3, Jaina Tower, Ward-3(4), Janak Puri, West Delhi, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1482F Assessee By : Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. reported in (2024) 463 ITR 89 (Cal.) deciding the very issue of this “limited” vis-à-vis “complete” scrutiny in assessee’s favour and against the department as under: ITA Nos. 2896 & 2899/Del/2023 3 Autonomy Homes Pvt. Ltd. “4. The revenue has raised ... forward losses was inadmissible since the beginning itself and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the same without converting the case into complete scrutiny ? 5. We have heard Mr. Amit Shanna, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned senior Advocate for the respondent

Autonomy Homes Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

Durgamatha House Building Construction Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 659/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 Durgamatha House Building Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Construction Co-Operative Hyderabad. Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacad6852C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, SR-DR

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

operative Society, filed its return of income on 30.12.2020 admitting income of Rs.Nil on 30.12.2020. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) as well as Section 142(1) of the Act were issued by the learned Assessing Officer

Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex, Kakinada vs. Principalmcommissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 234/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.234/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex V. Pr.Cit Aayakar Bhavan 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Dabagardens – 530020 Kakinada – 533016, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abdfs4641P]

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

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

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

assessee filed return of income on 28/02/2019 for the AY.2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.43,48,860/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issue: i) Source of Loan Advanced. The case has been selected for complete scrutiny through ‘CASS’ citing ... Assessing Officer framed reassessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 20.04.2021 as under:- 1. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No Issues 1. Source of Loan Advanced The assessee has e-filed

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim and winning from Lottery/crossword puzzle/horse races. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) served

Jagjit Singh Kataria, Sonepat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Assessee. 2 Jagjit Singh Kataria Vs. Pr. CIT 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case was selected for complete scrutiny for the purposes of verifying the claim of ‘refund of tax’ claimed by the Assessee. An assessment order dated 15/09/2021 came to be passed under Section ... dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to verify issue of ‘Refund Claim’. On noticing that the Assessee has claimed refund of Rs. 11,58,591/- as against pre- paid