← 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

Waseem Khan, Rampur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals, Moradabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1067/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Waseem Khan, Vs Income-tax Officer, 239, Afaridiyan, Rampur-244901 Ward-1(3), Rampur-2. PAN: CGTPK 0738 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None (written submissions) Department represented

Arth Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Limited Nashik, Nashik vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2042/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arth Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Limited, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Gala No.4, Shanti Daya Society, Hirawadi Shakti Nagar, Panchavati, Nashik – 422003. Pan: Aacaa7908C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prashant Shrishrimal – Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 01.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Interest From Nationalized Bank Rs.3,13,518/- Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) & Held It To Be Taxable Income Of The Society. 2. On The Facts & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Assessing Gross Interest Received From Nationalized Bank As Income Without Allowing Expenditure For Earning The Said Interest Income On Pro-Rata Basis. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Alter Delete Above Or Any Other Ground/S Of Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Assessee Had Earned Interest Income Of Rs.3,13,518/- From Nationalized Bank. The Ao Has Disallowed Assessee’S Claim For Deduction U/Sec.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act & Held That Interest Income Shall Be Taxed Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”. Ld.Ar Relied On Following Decisions Of Itat Pune Bench :  Dcit Vs. Shree Parshwanath Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd., In Ita No.265/Pun/2019, Dated 27.01.2022.  Baliraja Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maiyadit V. Ito

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

action would be open. [Para 12]” We have also noted that Similar view was held in various decisions, Viz Kumar Rajaram v. Income-tax Officer (International Taxation 2(1)), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 109 (Madras), Buharia Holdings (P.) Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner CIT v. Jain Construction Co [2013] 34 taxmann.com

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon ... position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon ... position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon ... position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon ... position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon ... position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner

Visible Chits (Maharashtra) (P) Ltd., Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4491/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Raj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe SR DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250Section 61Section 68

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2012-13,date of order04.12.2023. The impugned orderwas emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-15(3)(2), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’)passed under section 143(3)/ 147of the Act, date of order 28/12/2019. Visible Chits (Maharashtra

Ankur Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO- Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 3492/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)

DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3460 & 3492/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ankur Jain, Vs Income-tax Officer, KM 68 Block-M, Kavinagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. PAN: AEWPJ 0863 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by None Department by Shri

Ankur Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 3460/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)

DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3460 & 3492/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ankur Jain, Vs Income-tax Officer, KM 68 Block-M, Kavinagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. PAN: AEWPJ 0863 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by None Department by Shri

The Green Triveni Developer, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3431/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Green Triveni Developer, Vs Income-tax Officer, 3H Uppal Plaza, M-6, Ward-2(2), Faridabad. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025. PAN: AAIFT 0406 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri

Raju Jain, Palwal vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Faridabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3167/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raju Jain, Vs Income-tax Officer, House no. 638, Ward no. 31, Ward-2(2), Faridabad. Near Kile Housing Board Colony, Palwal-121102 PAN: AKWPJ 0669 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee

Ashok Kumar, Karnataka vs. ITO, Circle 67(1), Range-73, Civic Centre, Delhi Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2038/DEL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 154oSection 36(1)(va)

DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ashok Kumar, Vs Income-tax Officer, House no. 1, Raksha Nikunj, Circle-67(1), Delhi. MG Brother Wali Street, Boy Alahalli, Bangalore-562149 PAN: AKHPK 3133 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri

Birender Yadav S/O Ram Narayan Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4124/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Birender Yadav, S/O-Ram Vs. Ito, Narayan Yadav, Ward-2(3), 207-208, Deep Plaza, Gurgaon Near Civil Court, Gurgaon-122001 Pan: Abypy4175F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 2(47)Section 54Section 54BSection 68

supra) and the impugned cash deposit dated 23.02.2011 prima facie represents on money consideration only as per Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele vs Third Income-Tax Officer on [1994] 49 ITD 43 (TM) (MUM). We further reiterate the fact that involvement of such a huge cash component in assessee land; falling

The Thanthi Trust, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1369/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1369/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commissioner Of Income Tax The Thanthi Trust, V. (Exemptions), No. 86, Evk Sampath Road, Chennai – 600 034. Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaatt-0038-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri.Mudit Bohara, Advocate & Shri. K.R. Adivarahan, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate for Shri.Mudit Bohara, Advocate and Shri. K.RFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

appellate courts have failed to appreciate that a negative fact cannot be proved by adducing positive evidence” 2) ShriG.K.Raju -vs- The Income-tax Officer- ITA No.291(Mds)/2012- “D” Bench- dt. 12.07.2012 “-5- ITA 291 of 2012 forward from the earlier firm, the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) feels that

Indu Bala, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3869/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

income-tax Act.”  And on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad in Maradia Wire Rods Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad “Section 48, read with section 55, of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains – Computation of - Assessment year 1999-2000 - Assessee was allotted

Swami Samarth Sahakari Bank Ltd, Akkalkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2138/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat 9 Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society

S A S Traders, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1576/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 69A

authorities. A similar issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT Raipur Bench in the case Vishnusharan Chandravanshi v. Income-tax Officer in IT Appeal No. 73 (RPR) OF 2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] order dated APRIL 10, 2024 of [2024] reported in 161 taxmann.com

Corteva Crop India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assessment Unit, National Facessless Assessment Center, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 4647 &

ITA 4647/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16,both of ordersdated26.10.2023. The impugned ordersare emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(3), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’)passed under section143(3) of the Act, date of order 27/12/2016 and 29/12/2017 for A.Ys