आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘बी’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी एस एस (cid:24)व(cid:26)वने(cid:27) र(cid:24)व, (cid:14)या(cid:28)यक सद(cid:30)य एव ं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:30)य के सम%

BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1840/Chny/2025 (cid:28)नधा&रण वष & / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aadarsh Surana, DCIT, 42, Rajendra Prasad Road, vs. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chrompet, Chennai.

Chennai – 600 044.

[PAN: AAFPA-6450-M]

(अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent)

अपीलाथ( क+ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A.

)*यथ( क+ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT.

सुनवाई क+ तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा क+ तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated

31.03.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s.250 r.w.s 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The impugned order arises from the assessment order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai [hereinafter referred to as “the Assessing Officer” or “AO”], pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

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

1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.113,46,87,657/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), by treating the credits in the capital account during the relevant assessment year as unexplained.

2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs.19,83,67,287/- received by the appellant as gifts in the form of property settlements from his father and brother is exempt from tax and, therefore, cannot be brought to tax u/s.68 of the Act.

3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the gain of Rs.93,63,20,420/- arsing from business succession is exempt from tax u/s.47(xiv) of the Act, and hence the provisions of section 68 are inapplicable to such amount.

4. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking section 68 of the Act, despite the explanations and documentary evidence furnished by the appellant demonstrating the genuineness and source of the credits.

3. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A), and the said ground was duly adjudicated against the assessee. It was further submitted that, due to inadvertence, the said ground could not be incorporated while filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR, therefore, prayed for admission of the said legal ground as an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: -

“That the assessment order dated 29.12.2019, passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle–1(1), Chennai, is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Assessing Officer has converted the case from ‘limited scrutiny’ to ‘complete scrutiny’ without obtaining the mandatory prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) as required under the relevant CBDT Instructions and Circulars.”

4. The facts of the case, as emanating from the assessment order, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate, which he carries on as a sole proprietorship concern. The assessee is also a Director in the company M/s. Amar Prakaash Developers Private Limited.

5. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed his retur