← 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

The Tiruchirapalli Consumer Wholesale Stores Ltd, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 967/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 967/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income The Thiruchirapalli Consumer V. Tax, Wholesale Stores Ltd., Circle -1(1), 1 Dec, Evr Road, Trichy. Puthur, Trichy – 620 017. [Pan:Aacft-8019-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunantham, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hemabhupal, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunantham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. HemaBhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 admitting a loss of Rs.33,10,746/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was served on 25.09.2018. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

Sunrise Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha, Tumakuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tumkur

ITA 734/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8o

total income at Nil after deduction of Rs. 33,57,638/- u/s 80P of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.09.2018 and duly served. The AO passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi vs. Rajiv Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 295(2)(mm)

purchased, payment details, Bank details or any other corroborative evidence to justify the transaction. Hence after considering the above factual & legal position and after complete scrutiny of bank accounts it is clear that the assessee has neither paid nor received any amount for purchase/ sale of immovable property. Hence this

Nrw Kuldeep Singh, Sukhvider Singh & Others, Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

ITA 76/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 076/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 New Kuldeep Singh Sukhvinder Singh & Ors 111A/29B, Rk Nagar, Kanpur. Up-208 012 Pan: Aadan2365F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Samrat Chandra [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

subsequently revised declaring total income of ₹7,45,60,781/-. The case of the assessee selected for complete scrutiny under faceless e-Asstt Scheme-2019, wherein Ld. NeAC made addition of 4,81,30,340/- towards interest computed @ 8.78% on loans advanced to its members, and according framed the assessment

Praj Industries Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

loss of Rs.4,54,62,786/- but filed revised return on 27.03.2019 declaring income of Rs.20,29,22,330/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was issued on 21.08.2018 which was duly served upon

Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 373/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144B

total income at Rs. NIL after claiming exemption u/s.10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The return was selected for complete scrutiny under the CASS. Finally the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO") passed the order u/s.143(3) read with section 144B

Aquarelle India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 834/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 80J

under section 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2019 under the Act by the Ld.AO. The return of income of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the following reasons: a) Duty Drawback. b) Deduction from Total Income tinder Chapter Vl-A. 3.4 Subsequently various notices under section

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

total business loss of Rs.4,90,125/- and claimed a refund of Rs.8,94,050/-. The case Vinod Gugnani vs. ITO was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In the regular assessment following expenditures

JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Nirvana Infracon P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1932/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1932/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Jcit (Osd), Vs. Nirvana Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle -18 87, Pocket-1, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi-110 025 Pan: Aadcn 8810 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

dated 14.09.2016 and 17.08.2017 along with detailed questionnaire were sent to the assessee. The case was specifically converted to complete scrutiny upon approval granted by the Learned PCIT-06, New Delhi dated 23.10.2017 which fact was brought to the notice to the assessee by and under letter dated

JCIT, (OSD)(E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. National Internet Exchange of India, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd) (E), Vs National Internet Exchange Of India, 6C, 6D & 6E, 6Th Floor, Circle-2(1), New Delhi. Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcn9308A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Exemptions), Circle 2(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. The assessee’s return declaring nil income was selected for complete scrutiny and after examining the objects and activities of the assessee company, the AO concluded that the assessee is doing an activity on commercial lines

M.C.Jewels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 M/S. M C Jewels P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 3222/30, Beadon Pura, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005 Pan Aadcm9030C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 37

income tax return for assessment year 2017-18, declaring income of Rs. 1,77,25,250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS-complete scrutiny (E-proceeding) for the reason as under:- 1. Large increase in unsecured loan 2. Large value cash deposit during demonetization 3. Abnormal increase

Agro Haat, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Agro Haat Vs. Ito Shop No. A-1131, New Subzi Ward- 36 (2) Mandi, New Delhi-110033 Delhi Pan No.Aapfa2449G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee was filed its return of income on 31-10-2017 electronically, declaring total income of Rs 4,58650/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 16-08-2018 was issued through ITBA Portal. In the response of the show cause

Charmi Samir Patel, Karelibaug, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vadodara

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

ITA 68/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

issued by the AO. The case of the assessee was selected for framing scrutiny assessment under CASS under category of complete scrutiny assessment for the reason of excess contribution to provident fund or superannuation fund by the employer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished details

Vtp Mohite Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 112/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)

developer. It filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.55,04,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: Sr. No. Issues i. Deductions from Income from Other Sources ii. Income from Real Estate

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

view. The case of the assessee was more specific to the limited scrutiny or it is not case of the assessee for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) for regular assessment and the very basis of reopening of the case under section 148 was on account of cash deposits ... detailed scrutiny in case—AO is duty bound to follow instructions in case limited scrutiny assessment proceeding are proposed to be converted into complete scrutiny and without following said procedure and necessary approval of competent authority conducting an enquiry on issue which is outside limited scrutiny would be beyond jurisdiction

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito. Int Tax Ward Rita Hemchand Gandhi 2(3)(1) Ayodhya Apartments, 17Th Floor, Air India Flat No.101, Ramgali, Vs. Building, Kandivali (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

liability, immediately paid tax thereon along with interest and filed the return of income which is accepted as it is after the complete scrutiny. Therefore there is neither a concealment of income and nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the penalty should not be levied under section

Mohammed Iqbal Mulla, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 4808/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4808/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Mohammed Iqbal Mulla Vs. Ito-11(1)(1) 601/701, Atlantis, Seven Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow, Andheri West M.K. Road Maharashtra-400 061. Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaepm2197E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rishab Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Mulla, ( The Assessee Appellant) Against The Appellate Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2016 – 17 On 30/10/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 27/12/2018 Passed By The Income Tax Ofc, Ward – 11 (1) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs. 1,655,770/– On Account Of Addition Of Salary Income, Unsecured Loan Under Section 68, Advanced Against Sale Of Agricultural Land Under Section 68 & Agricultural Income , Total Addition Amounting To Rs. 5,401,802/–, Was Dismissed. 2. Therefore, The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Appellate Order & Has Preferred To Appeal Raising Grounds Against All The Additions Confirmed. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Director In Cities In World Travels Private Limited & Messes Present Page 1 Of 6

Section 143Section 68

This return was revised on 16/9/2017 at a total income of Rs. 653,970/–. The return was picked up for complete scrutiny and notice under section 143 (2) of the act was issued to the assessee on 9/8/2018. 4. During assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee has received

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Nahan vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Nahan

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

ITA 187/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 187/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, बनाम Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour Nahan, Sirmour. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned A.O. in converting the limited scrutiny case to Complete Scrutiny without prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal ... requested the Bench to allow him to withdraw Ground N o. 8 of the appeal, i.e., regarding Limited Scrutiny case converting in to a Complete Scrutiny. The Bench allowed him to withdraw the same and as such the appeal on this Ground is dismissed as withdrawn

Mahesh Kumar Sukhjika Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 143(1)(a)

filed the return of income on 28/09/2017, declaring an income of Rs. 9,37,930/-. 3. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on three aspects, namely, i. large investment in property as compared to total income with issues involved “investment in immoveable property”, ii. value of property transferred

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

year under consideration on 30th September, 2018 declaring total income of Rs. 6,12,59,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under e-Assessment Scheme 2019. In para no. 2 of the assessment order, the AO has given the details of the reply ... return of income u/s 143(1), the assessee filed an application for rectification. However, the case of the assessee was taken up for complete scrutiny, therefore, the said application of the assessee was also directed to the AO for consideration and disposal. The AO has considered the claim