आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ,चÛे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:302)ी मनु कुमार (cid:876)ग(cid:464)र,Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (cid:302)ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 74/CHNY/2025 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981)/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Yelamarthi Satya Anand, The Deputy Commissioner of No.36/2B, Perumal Koil Street, Income Tax, Kotturpuram – 600 085. Vs. Central Circle – 2(2), Chennai.

PAN: AAHPA 7898K ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant)

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai-19 [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 25.11.2024 arising out of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") passed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act') for the Assessment Year 2020-21 (hereinafter the"AY").

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai is not justified in upholding the assessment order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the case of the appellant was selected for compulsory scrutiny in violation of the CBDT guidelines issued vide Circular No. F.No.225/81/2022/ITA-11 dated 11.05.2022 (as modified on 03.06.2022) and consequently the impugned assessment is bad in law.

3. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 2(22)(e)of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.

5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there cannot be any addition in the hands of the appellant in view of provisions of section 10(34) r.w.s 115-O of the Act.

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 10(34) of the Act are applicable only upon the payment of tax as stipulated in section115-0 of the Act in as much as the said amendment is applicable only from AY 2021-22 and not the impugned assessment year.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The assessee is an individual holding 25% of shares and a directorship in the company M/s. Intex Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Intex'). For the impugned assessment year, the appellant filed his return of income originally on 31.08.2020 declaring a total income of Rs.40,00,670/-.

Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 21.05.2021 admitting the same total income as originally returned. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act took place in the case of M/s. IG3 Infra Limited (hereinafter referred to as "IG3'). In connection with the transactions between Intex and IG3, the appellant along with the other director Shri V Sudhakaran were summoned by the DDIT (Investigation), on 19.01.2021. During the course of summons, DDIT (Inv) observed from the bank account of Intex that the company has transferred Rs.1 crore each to the appellant and Shri V Sudhakaranon 24.09.2019. In response to the query regarding the nature of payment, it was deposed by the appellant that Rs.1 crore was an advance received from Intex towards the sale of office building situated at No.2, Sardar Patel Road, Gokul Arcade, 4h Floor