← All Phrases

“Chief Commissioner”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(15A) / Section 1172,876 judgments

The decision most relied on for Chief Commissioner is Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 296), cited in 98 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Chief Commissioner

Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT
93 Taxmann.com 296 · 2018 · High Court
98
citing judgments

Approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 must reflect due application of mind. A mere endorsement of "approved" without reasons or reference to material is insufficient, as the approval serves as a safeguard and must be meaningful, not ritualistic or formal.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court
95
citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT
346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court
89
citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
1 SCC 405 · 1978 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

When a statutory authority issues an order based on specific grounds, its validity must be assessed solely by those stated grounds and cannot be supported or improved by additional reasons provided later in affidavits or other means. An order that is invalid at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent justifications.

Sahara India v. CIT & Others
216 CTR 303 · 2008 · Reported
54
citing judgments

The requirement of prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 142(2A) is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary assessment, placing a significant responsibility on the approving authority to ensure its genuine application and prevent it from becoming a mere formality.

New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
448 ITR 594 · 2022 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

An institution qualifies as an 'educational institution' for tax exemption, including under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), only if it imparts structured, formal education, distinguishing it from general public utility activities under Section 2(15).

Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise
280 ITR 321 · 2006 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, this power does not normally extend to creating an offence or penal liability retroactively, nor to withdrawing a benefit already granted under a statute through retrospective amendment.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT
315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has no power to cancel registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act retrospectively, especially when there is no express provision in the Act for such cancellation and the order is quasi-judicial in nature.

Judgments citing Chief Commissioner

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6229/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 4

that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8094/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Section 148 of the Act by the A.O. after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner arrives at a satisfaction based on the reasons recorded by the A.O. that

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1770/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section ... nominated by the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require.” [Provided that

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1769/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section ... nominated by the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require.” [Provided that

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1768/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section ... nominated by the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require.” [Provided that

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1767/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section ... nominated by the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require.” [Provided that

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1766/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section ... nominated by the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require.” [Provided that

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section ... functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf 85 ITA.Nos

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section ... functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf 85 ITA.Nos

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section ... functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf 85 ITA.Nos

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section ... functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf 85 ITA.Nos

A.T. Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4405/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4405/Del/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2003-04 बनाम A.T. Kearney Ltd., Adit India Branch Office, Vs. Circle 1(1) 14Th Floor, Tower D, International Taxation, Global Business Park, New Delhi. Gurgaon.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44D

year from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commission or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order u/s 263 or section 264 or section 264 is passed ... Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.” 17. In the light of the judicial discussion mentioned elsewhere on the facts of the case discussed hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 19.08.2011 is barred by limitation. 18. Before parting

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uv Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6033/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Agarwal. Adv
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24

section (2) stipulates that question/ dispute of jurisdiction among two or more Assessing Officers, if raised, shall be determined by the Director- General, Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, or if the question relates to areas falling within the jurisdiction of different 15 I.T.A. No.6033/DEL/2016 & CO No.11/DEL/2017 Directors-General, Chief Commissioners ... Commissioners, then by the Directors-General, Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned, and if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Director-General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner that the Board may by an Official Gazette specify. Sub-section (3) further stipulates that the objection to the jurisdiction

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

four years from the end of relevant assessment years at the time of issue of notice, necessary sanction has to be obtained from Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of Income Tax, in view of the amended provision of section 151 w.e.f

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2381/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

used. 6.6. Section 127 deals with the power to transfer cases. Sub- section (1) of this provision provides that : `The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after ... whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may' in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

secondly in the case which falls under proviso to section 151(1) of the Act, approval has to be granted by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and since for the AY 2003-04 and 2004-05, approval has been granted by the Addl. CIT hence initiation of proceedings under section ... Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing 22 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. Officer aforesaid

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

secondly in the case which falls under proviso to section 151(1) of the Act, approval has to be granted by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and since for the AY 2003-04 and 2004-05, approval has been granted by the Addl. CIT hence initiation of proceedings under section ... Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing 22 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. Officer aforesaid

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

secondly in the case which falls under proviso to section 151(1) of the Act, approval has to be granted by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and since for the AY 2003-04 and 2004-05, approval has been granted by the Addl. CIT hence initiation of proceedings under section ... Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing 22 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. Officer aforesaid

Gurudwara Kalgidhar Singh Sabha, New Delhi vs. ITO (E) Ward - 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 7984/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing : 18.02.2021
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194ISection 69C

approval from the Prescribed Authority. The system of this approval as provided under Rule 2C of the I.T. Rules mandated the approval of Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, in the case of the assessee, assessee failed to 4 ITA.No.7984/Del./2019 Gurudwara Kalgidhar Singh Sabha, New Delhi. provide ... section 10. 2C. (1) The prescribed authority under sub- clauses (iv) and (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief Commissioner or Director General, to whom the application shall be made as provided in sub-rule (2). 10 ITA.No.7984/Del./2019 Gurudwara Kalgidhar Singh Sabha, New Delhi

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax-22, Delhi (old designation Commissioner of Income Tax-XIV, Delhi). This order u/s 127 was passed with the administrative approval of Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi- XIII vide F.No. CCIT-XIII/Centralization/2013-14/640 dated 26.08.2013. A copy of this order has also been sent to the assessee. Since ... other officer, it is observed that the transfer of jurisdiction has taken place after due consideration and with the administrative approval of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-XIII vide F.No. CCIT-XIII/Centralization/2013-14/640 dated.26.08.2013. A copy of this order has also been sent to the assessee. There