SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

Capital Gain after taking exemption U/s.54F of the I.T.Act 1961. The copy of the acknowledgement along with the hard copy of the return are enclosed in the paper book-1 submitted on 08.01.2018 and marked as Annexure-C (page-31 to 40) for you honour's kind perusal. 5.8 That under the above said facts and circumstances of the case

SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

capital gain, your Assessee has declared it in the return of income as exempted income, for which she is lawfully entitled to. your Assessee submits herewith copies of purchase Deed and sale Deed and copy of Khatiyan for your reference and record On perusal of Deeds, it will be clear that the lands sold are purely agricultural land

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

capital gain of 4410% in the case of Sudama Trading & Investment Ltd and 10435%, in the case of Shiv Om Investment Ltd in nearly one year. Both of these companies are non- descript companies and the sale rates have been pushed through manipulation. Even the fortune 500 companies have not reported such fantastic gains in one year

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

capital gains" or under "profits and gains of business or profession", it is essential to know the manner of disclosure of investment/accounting relating to listed shares and securities transactions 3.1.20. Accordingly, the direction was issued in this 'limited scrutiny' to examine whether the investment and income relating to securities transactions are duly disclosed. 3.1.21. The 'limited scrutiny' was never initiated

PAHANAWA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.174/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela Sector-C, Main Road, Bandamunda, Rourkela, Odisha-770032 Pan No. :Adspg 0050 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 16.02.2024 Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061029134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018 On The Strength Of Following Grounds Of Appeal :- A. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Nfac Is Ex-Facie Illegal, Excessive, Bad In Law & As Such Liable To Be Quashed In Limine. B. For That The Ld. Nfac Totally Misinterpreted The Fact & Has Upheld The Addition Of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. C. For That The Ld. Nfac Instead Of Completely Setting Aside The Addition Of Rs.2,80,50,000/- Has Instead Directed The Assessing Officer To Delete The Amount After Verification.

capital gain in the hands of the assessee is directed to be deleted. 8. It is further observed by us that even otherwise this transaction of purchase of property was actually pertained to the partnership firm M/s. Aaravindam Lifspace LLP, therefore the assessee cannot be asked for the source of investments in his individual capacity therefore, on this score also

NABIN KUMAR GUPTA,BANDAMUNDA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.174/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela Sector-C, Main Road, Bandamunda, Rourkela, Odisha-770032 Pan No. :Adspg 0050 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 16.02.2024 Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061029134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018 On The Strength Of Following Grounds Of Appeal :- A. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Nfac Is Ex-Facie Illegal, Excessive, Bad In Law & As Such Liable To Be Quashed In Limine. B. For That The Ld. Nfac Totally Misinterpreted The Fact & Has Upheld The Addition Of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. C. For That The Ld. Nfac Instead Of Completely Setting Aside The Addition Of Rs.2,80,50,000/- Has Instead Directed The Assessing Officer To Delete The Amount After Verification.

capital gain in the hands of the assessee is directed to be deleted. 8. It is further observed by us that even otherwise this transaction of purchase of property was actually pertained to the partnership firm M/s. Aaravindam Lifspace LLP, therefore the assessee cannot be asked for the source of investments in his individual capacity therefore, on this score also

KANAKALATA MALLICK,B-FIFTY FIVE,SECTOR-EIGHT vs. JCIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.363/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Kanaklata Mallick, Vs Jcit, Cuttack B-Fifty Five, Sector-Eight, Cda, Odisha-753014 Pan No. :Acspm 3665 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.09.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056301242(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is In Regard To The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271Da Of The Act For Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 269St Of The Act. Ld. Jcit Has Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S.271Da Of The Act By Issuing A Show Cause Notice Dated 01.10.2021 & Thereafter Levied The Penalty Of Rs.5,00,000/- Vide Impugned Order Dated 27.04.2022. In First Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Penalty, Therefore, The Assessee Is Before Us In The Present Appeal. 3. During The Course Of Arguments, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Received More Than 90% Of The Consideration

deposited by the assessee into the bank account, hence does not attract the provisions of section 269SS of the Act since there is no suppression of cash receipts by the assessee. The assessee has also offered the capital gains

JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

cash deposit and interest were Rs.73,69,368/- i.e. exceeding maximum amount which was not chargeable to income tax. The assessee society has not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 which the assessee was under statutory obligation to file In view of the above facts and circumstances, I have sufficient reason to believe that income

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

cash equivalents. Out of total share capital/reserves of Rs.248.29 crores, the capital work-in-progress as on 31.03.2014 stands at Rs.112.49 crores. The amount invested as FDRs in banks has neither been given as advances to RVNL nor utilized in meeting day to day expenses as alleged. In this case, the AR of the assessee had relied upon the decisions

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

cash equivalents. Out of total share capital/reserves of Rs.248.29 crores, the capital work-in-progress as on 31.03.2014 stands at Rs.112.49 crores. The amount invested as FDRs in banks has neither been given as advances to RVNL nor utilized in meeting day to day expenses as alleged. In this case, the AR of the assessee had relied upon the decisions

ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. SUVAKETAN BUILDERS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

capital gains. On the basis of statement of Mr Mir Sarif, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2 crores as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee company rejecting the assessee’s claim that it had not paid any amount in excess of Rs.25,43,310/- as stated in the registered conveyance deed. 4. On appeal before

AKSHYA KUMAR CHOUDHURY,KHORDA vs. ITO,WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita

deposits, however, accepted the contentions of the assessee on account of long term capital gain and allowed part relief by upholding the addition of Rs.2,37,750/- out of total addition of Rs.16,50,250/- made by AO on this account. Aggrieved by the ordr of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the confirmation

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

M/S. HARIDASPUR PARADIP RAILWAY COMPANY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.383/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Haridaspur Paradip Railway Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Company Limited, Bhubaneswar J/7, Pal Heights, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aabch 9319 R (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs.3,27,79,005/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

gains of business or profession'. There would, therefore, be no requirement of taking recourse to Section 56 of the IT Act for taxing the interest income under this residuary clause as income from other sources. In our view, to decide the question as to whether a particular source of income is business income, one would have to look

SISKHA 'O' ANUSANDHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.91/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Plot No.224, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aabts 1525 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

cash deposits made during demonetization period and explanations offered in course of assessment, Ld. Assessing officer being satisfied completed the assessment by accepting the return of income of the assessee. 4. That there after the CIT(exemption) Hyderabad called for the assessment record of the A/Y -2017-18 for examination and after examination found the order dated 25.07.2019 passed