← All Phrases

“Income-tax Officer”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(25) / Section 1175,006 judgments

The decision most relied on for Income-tax Officer is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Income-tax Officer

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer

Sahil Satishbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) (Previously Circle-5(2)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Palak Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR
Section 250Section 68

BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1524/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahil Satishbhai Shah, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Kaycrest 41, Parimal Society, Nr. Ward-1(1)(3), Parimal Garden, CG Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN : ACIPS 7772 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant

The George Telegraph Training Institute, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 29(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 563/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

only once. The Board desire to reiterate the earlier instructions in this regard. In order that there is no loss of revenue, the Income-tax Officer should keep this point in view at the time of raising the initial assessment either of the trust or the beneficiaries and adopt ... course beneficial to the revenue. Having exercised his option once, it will not be open to the Income-tax Officer to assess the same income for that assessment year in the hands of the other person (i.e., the beneficiary or the trustee).” 16. The subject was earlier clarified

The George Telegraph Training Institute, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 29(1)., Kolkata

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

ITA 562/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

only once. The Board desire to reiterate the earlier instructions in this regard. In order that there is no loss of revenue, the Income-tax Officer should keep this point in view at the time of raising the initial assessment either of the trust or the beneficiaries and adopt ... course beneficial to the revenue. Having exercised his option once, it will not be open to the Income-tax Officer to assess the same income for that assessment year in the hands of the other person (i.e., the beneficiary or the trustee).” 16. The subject was earlier clarified

M/S Niwas Residential & Commercial Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

ITA 2114/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 14ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

Sun Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., Korba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba

ITA 528/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 528/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sun Developers & Builders Private Limited Near Bansal Agency, Darri Road, Korba-495 677 (C.G.) Pan: Aaocs0895A

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

aforesaid judgment it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that where an Income-Tax Officer had adopted one of the courses permissible in law with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless ... India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC). Once again it was observed that where two views are possible and the Income-Tax Officer has taken one of the view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests

Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1130/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, A.C.I.T., Top Floor, Ason City, City Light Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, City Light, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Aaspa 3016 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the
Section 254(1)

order she has mentioned to treat business income, however, there is no deeming provision for rest income from the business. 3. The learned Income-tax Officer was not justifying in making the addition of Rs. 15,62,400/- on account of House Property and also

Pinakin Dineshchandra Shah, Vadodara vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(2), Vadodara, Vadosara

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

ITA 1382/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Adjournment application filedFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1382/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pinakin Dineshchandra Shah, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. At Madhav Girls Khadki, Post. Ward-1(3)(2), Bhadarwa, Tal. Savali, Dist. Vadodara Vadodara-391780 [PAN : BFEPS 3442 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant

Shri Vidhyut Board Credit and Consumers Co Operative Society Limited, Bhavnagar vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 1057/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

circumstance of case in overlooking the decision of hon. Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer, Karnataka (2010) 188 Taxman 282 (SCO) and confirming the disallowance made by ACIT for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a) of the Act. 3. The Learned

Hardik Hitesh Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3331/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 3331/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehardik Hitesh Shah Vs The Income-Tax Officer, 702, 7Th Floor, A-Wing Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai Veesita Residency, Azad Road, Kautilya Bhavan Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069 Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Pan:Bjzps7889E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR. DR.)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 6

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hardik Hitesh Shah vs The Income-tax Officer, 702, 7th Floor, A-Wing Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai Veesita Residency, Azad Road, Kautilya Bhavan Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069 BKC, Mumbai ... additions of INR 20,15,911 to the assessed income of the Appellant by the Learned Additional / Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre on account of perquisite in respect of the tax paid by the employer on the relocation allowance

Jamuna Shankar Sharma, Guna vs. ITO, Guna

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

ITA 45/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 250(6)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamuna Shankar Sharma, Income-tax Officer, Gram-Barkheda Sapha, v. Guna Ukawad, Guna-473001, Madhya Pradesh PAN :CUEPS8121A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Sh. Rajendra Sharma , Shri Manuj Sharma, Advocate , Smt. Ayushi Pareek

Gopal Agarwal, Firozabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2)1, Firozabad

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

ITA 34/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gopal Agarwal, v. Income-tax Officer, 207, Durga Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad. Firozabad (U.P.) 283203 PAN :APVPA2198H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Adjournment application rejected Revenue by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Satnam Singh, Mohali 6 “A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the beneficiaries ... inconclusive note where the Income-tax Officer left the matter at the stage of consideration even with regard to refund in the hands of the beneficiaries. This note was also not communicated to the trustees. When we examine the note dated November 10, 1965, on the file

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Satnam Singh, Mohali 6 “A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the beneficiaries ... inconclusive note where the Income-tax Officer left the matter at the stage of consideration even with regard to refund in the hands of the beneficiaries. This note was also not communicated to the trustees. When we examine the note dated November 10, 1965, on the file

Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5) Present ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1342/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1342/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 21-A, Sardarpatel Society, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad Behind Swaminarayan Tower, Maninagar (West), At present Ahmedabad-380008 ITO, Ward

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur vs. ACIT (Exmp.) Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 951/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57

Income-tax Act did not provide for rejection of an invalid return but under Section 143, a duty was cast on the Income-tax Officer to assess the total income after notice to the assessee and considering the evidence that might be produced. It was observed that there could ... under: a) In this case, the assessee had filed its return of income in a wrong form. Subsequently, as required by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed the return in the correct form. b) On the completion of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer charged interest under Section

Nadia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nadia vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

accruing on doubtful debts is credited to a suspense account, It need not be included in the assessee's taxable income, provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery is practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala High

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Ahamed Brothers, Trichy

ITA 935/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.934/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ Co72/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy Ahamed Brothers, No.21/1, Singarathope, Trichy Tamil Nadu-620008. [Aahfa7608P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : आदेश / Order S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appel-Lant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 69A

necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, has expressly provided for it, whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any Page - 9 - of 27 ITA No.934 & 935 & CO-72/Chny/2024 :- 10 -: person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Trichy vs. Ahamed Brothers, Trichy

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 934/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.934/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ Co72/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 133ASection 69A

necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, has expressly provided for it, whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any Page - 9 - of 27 ITA No.934 & 935 & CO-72 /Chny/2024 :- 10 -: person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under ... confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables

M/S. Sbs Brothers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1895/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Brothers, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.44/55, Strotten Muthiah Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-79 Chennai [Pan: Aahfs6119B]

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, has expressly provided for it, whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables ... confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, has expressly provided for it, whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables ... confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables