“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

G2273 Arungunam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Arungunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

noted (supra) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (Single Bench) order in the case of Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, held in favour of Revenue, was reversed by the Hon’ble Division Bench by order dated 24.06.2025 by holding as under: 1. This appeal impugns

Ashish N. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6713/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarashish N. Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 41(4)(1) 1501, Anmol Enclave Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc S.V Road, Goregoan, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 062. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aazpg7658K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Court in the case of Asian Paints Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC), wherein it has specifically been directed that ‘the Income-tax Officer concerned shall follow the above procedure strictly in all such cases of reopening of assessment.” 8. Therefore, when Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

Charchit Garg, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80J

audit report at the time of assessment proceedings. 12. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 922 (Gujarat), order dated 30.04.2025, has also reiterated that filing of audit report is a procedural requirement and even if such report

Shree Amizira Parshwanath Swetambar Jain Tirth Trust, Amijhera vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 292/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Shree Amizira Parshwanath Ito Swetamber Jain Tirth Trust Dhar बनाम/ Amzera Sardarpur Vs. Dhar (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Aamts9264J Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

made available by the assessee to the Assessing Officer latest when the question of framing of assessment is taken up by the Income-tax Officer and when he applies his mind to the claim of the assessee and if by that time, the assessee has put his house in order

Bipin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1955/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblebipinbhai Kantilal Vakta, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 195, Doshiwadani Pole, Ward-1(2)(1), Kalupur, Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aagpv 4044 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Samir Vora, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bipinbhai Kantilal Vakta, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 195, Doshiwadani Pole, Ward-1(2)(1), Kalupur, Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [PAN : AAGPV 4044 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Samir Vora

Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2499/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, Vs Ito Ward-33(1), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Acwpj 1463 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 187 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Has Also Not Objected To Condone The Delay. Considering The Prayer Of The Assessee In The Application & The Sufficient Reasons For Delay, I Condone The Delay Of 187 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Notice Issued U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 29.09.2018, Whcih Is Shown At Page 63 Of The Paper Book Is Not As Per The Format Prescribed By The Cbdt. The Said Notice Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)

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 ... 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 13 practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala

Brinda Daga, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

ITA 2089/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

simple way of communication between the Department and assessee in a hassle free manner, through electronic means, without the necessity to visit Income-tax Office for conduct of assessment proceedings. This new facility is also environment friendly as assessment proceedings have now become paperless. 2. 'ई-कार्यवाही' कार्यक्षमता के माध्यम

Abhishek Jayketu Joshi, Mumbai vs. Ac Cir-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5775/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarabhishek Jayketu Joshi Ac Cir-42(2)(1), C-73, Venus Society, R. G. Kautilya Bhavan, Thadani Marg, Worli Sea Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Face, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Ackpj8583H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. M. Golvala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

jurisdictional challenge, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Anurag Gupta v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 150 taxmann.com 99 / 454 ITR 326, and submitted that the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case ... opportunity illusory. 28. On this aspect, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in Anurag Gupta v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 150 taxmann.com 99 / 454 ITR 326, has categorically held that failure to furnish the material relied upon vitiates the proceedings under section 148A

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Javerilal Dalichand Bhansali, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 6284/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhisha Jain & Mr. Karan Jain (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessment Year 2011-12, date of order 01/10/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer 20(2)(1), Mumbai 2 Javerilal Dalichand Bhansali (for brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’) order passed u/s143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order 27/12/2016. 2. The revenue

Vachhani Ketanbhai Mansukhlal (HUF), Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward -1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 749/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.749/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Vachhani Ketanbhai The Income-Tax Officer, Vs Mansukhlal (Huf), Ward-1(1)(1), It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, A/603 Rudrax Appartment, Vatiaka, Race Course Ring Road, Shree Colony Main Rajkot. – 360001, Gujarat Road, Amin Marg Rajkot 360005, (Gujarat) India "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aaghv1067A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं. /ITA No.749/RJT/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Vachhani Ketanbhai The Income-tax Officer, Vs Mansukhlal (HUF), Ward-1(1)(1), IT Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, A/603 Rudrax Appartment, Vatiaka, Race Course Ring Road, Shree Colony Main Rajkot

Kamlesh Singh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward-4(30, Kolkata

ITA 2459/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan

Section 143(2)

Nazareth Learning Services, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

Nisar Ahamed Abdul Sukkur, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1868/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

aforesaid judgments and principles laid down in other cases indicate that while making the assessment under the principles of best judgment, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. There must be something more than a mere suspicion

Rakesh Divedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3290/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

this court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the Income-tax Officer was to be agreed upon, the least which is expected is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf set-ting out brief ... case to issue notice under section 148. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

held that; "According to section 148 of the Act of 1961, before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section ... shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section. The Income-tax Officer has also, before issuing such notice, to record his reasons for doing so. Section 149 prescribes the time limit for the notice. The time limit

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

Gopal Mathurdas Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both these appeals are also partly allowed

ITA 408/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Gopal Mathurdas Parikh. vs. ITO 6. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Income-tax Officer and the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.sec.147 r.w.sec. 1448 of the Act hurriedly without making adequate enquiries

Gopal Mathurdas Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both these appeals are also partly allowed

ITA 407/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Gopal Mathurdas Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both these appeals are also partly allowed

ITA 406/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148