← 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

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

following para:- "It is necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries before ... accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of civil court. The statements made in the pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be adopted by a civil

Abdul Nayab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Maturmandir, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

short, ‘the Act'), date of order 18.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer-23(1)(1), Mumbai (in short, 'the A.O.') passed under section143(3) / 147of the Act date of order22/11/2018. 2. The assesseehas taken the following grounds ... section of the 1922 Act and section 4 of the present Act, but that was a case of an unregistered firm where the Income-tax Officer had assessed theincomes in the hands of the partners individually. In such a situation, the learned judge held the Income-tax Officer cannot

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. P K Krishnan Educational Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3533/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer P K Krishnan Educational Trust 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building Shree Siddhi Vinayak Engl. Vs. Cumballa Hill, Pedder Road, High School, Hariyali Village Mumbai-400 026 Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp5026F

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

affidavit nor did he cross examine the trustee. Accordingly, the claim for s. 11 exemption was upheld. iii. Shree Bhairav Seva Samiti v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) (ITA NO. 2225/MUM/2022) [A.Y. 2016-17] (Date of order – 08.12.2022) wherein it has been held that - We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional

State Bank of India, Mumbai City vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai City

ITA 1932/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai City vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1931/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai City vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1930/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai City vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1929/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

ITA 1928/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailstate Bank Of India Appellant 3Rd Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan – Aaacs8577K Dcit(Tds), Circle-2(2), Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Respondent V/S State Bank Of India

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1927/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1926/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1925/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

DCIT (TDS), Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1903/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

DCIT (TDS), Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1902/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

DCIT (TDS), Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1901/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

DCIT (TDS), Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

ITA 1900/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) [ITO] of considering the surplus interest retained by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs] as liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions

Ankita Nemichand Ranka, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short, ‘the Act’), date of order 10.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer-19(1)(1), Mumbai (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section 143(3) / 147 of the Act date of order27/12/2017. 2. The assesseehas taken the following

Inderjeet Kaur Bhatia, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 49(1), New Delhi

ITA 2830/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 69

BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2830/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2017-18] Inderjeet Kaur Bhatia Vs. The Income-tax Officer G-16-B, 2nd Floor, Ward - 49( 1) Mansarovar Garden Delhi New Delhi PAN – AIRPB 0460 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shivam Malik

Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Trust, Khambhat vs. The ITO, Ward (Exemption), Vadodara

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

ITA 227/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Income-Tax Officer, Trust, Ward (Exemption), 1, Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana, Vadodara Opp. Bus Stand, Khambhat, Gujarat-388620 Pan : Aaatd 2007 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 250

BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Income-Tax Officer, Trust, Ward (Exemption), 1, Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana, Vadodara Opp. Bus Stand, Khambhat, Gujarat-388620 PAN : AAATD 2007 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ

Maheshwari Megaventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.S.Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC) and also in the case of R.K. Malhotra, Income-tax Officer vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) to say that the report of the internal audit party also constitutes a valid source ... assessment, under section 147 of the Act is concerned, Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of P.V.S.Beedies (P.) Ltd. and R.K. Malhotra, Income-tax Officer (supra), held that the audit department was the proper machinery to scrutinise assessments made by the ITO and to point out errors

Subhash Sharma., Belurmath vs. ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1100/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.1099 & 1100/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Subhash Sharma Acit, Circle-47, Kolkata 322, Flat-3E, Tirupati Vs Building, G.T. Road, Block-I, Belurmath-711202. Pan: Altps 5888 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri S.L. Kochar & Shri A. Kochar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Both Dated 20.09.2023 For The Ay 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Kochar & Shri A. Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148

income of the assessee being less than Rs.20 Lakhs, the jurisdiction for assessing the income of the assessee vested with the Income-tax Officer. However, the assessment order in the case of assessee has been framed by the ACIT, Circle-38, Midnapore. In absence of any specific order ... case, prima facie it indicates that the assessment in the case of the assessee ought to have been framed by the Income-tax Officer and not by the ACIT as the income declared in the Income-tax return is less than Rs.20 Lakhs. Now, whether under such given facts