“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

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

claimed to be the real owner. When both these explanations were rejected, as they have been, it was clearly open to the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income must be concealed income. There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily ... source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” 6.2.3 In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC), the Hon’ble Apex

Dhruv Sachdev L/H of Late Arun Sachdev, Bhopal vs. ITO-5(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 446/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Indore03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, (L/H Of Late Shri Arun 5(2), Sachdev), Bhopal A-253, Old Minal बनाम/ Residency, Vs. J.K. Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan Of Dhruv Sachdev : Ehlps0746F Pan Of Late Shri Arun Sachdev : Adops9500L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024

Section 144Section 147

TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Income-tax Officer, (L/H of Late Shri Arun 5(2), Sachdev), Bhopal A-253, Old Minal बनाम/ Residency, Vs. J.K. Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN of Dhruv

Gurjant Singh, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

according to this case, the Commissioner of Income-tax is not enti tled to set aside the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order and the Commissioner of Income-tax ... proceed- ings under section 263 of the Act cannot direct the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment to initiate penalty proceedings. As the position stands concluded and settled by the Supreme Court, the question which is now sought to be referred by the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot

M/S Monk Akarshala Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4151/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Monk Akarshala Private Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 2(2)(1) 4116 Oberoi Garden Estate Room No. 545 Chandivli Vlg Farm Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Near Chandivli Studio, Saki Naka Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai City - 400072 Pan: Aagcm4703K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Manasi Vyas Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 234B

that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income-tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue

M/S R.S.Darshan Singh Motors Car Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

received. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of the belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because ... formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence. The powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words used in the statute are "reason to believe'' and not "reason to suspect". But from

Vaishali Developers & Builders, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 357/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80I

TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN : AACFV7638P Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA & AR Revenue

Siddhi Vinayak, Indore vs. ITO-3(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 260/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-Tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Accfs1664A Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 44A

TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ACCFS1664A Assessee by Shri Arpit Gaur

Lalit Rahul Mehta, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 4476/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(8)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

JCIT (It) (OSD)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Rangachari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 2393/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(i)

taxpayers' story that the money has been brought into India from outside may be disbelieved by 24 ITA No.2393/Mum/2019 Shri Arun Rangachari the Income-tax Officer who may then proceed to hold that the money had in fact been earned in India." 15.4 In this whole episode, the issue

Magapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 4280/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Sumit ShethFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT

Mahendra Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 4275/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 250Section 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT

Kalpesh Rameshbhai Vyas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

ITA 4214/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4143/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2008-09) Shri Rameshkumar Sanghvi vs Income-tax Officer-19(3)(1), M/s Orient Metal Industries Mumbai 23/8, 3rdPanjarapole Lane, CP Tank, Mumbai-400 004 PAN : AEEPS0340H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assesseeby : Shri Vimal Punamiya Respondent ... Makwana, JCIT Date of hearing : 24/04/2024 Date of pronouncement : 29/ 04/2024 ITA 4214/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2009-10) Shri Kalpesh Rameshbhai Vyas vs Income-tax Officer-2(1), 15/A, Gr.Floor, Laheri Building Thane 4thKhetwadi Lane, Opp Recreation PARK, Mumbai-400 004 PAN : AAPPV4037K APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Ms. Mona Makwana Respondent by : Shri

Rameshkumar Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matru Mandir

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

ITA 4143/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

Kapil Chhabra, Moradabad vs. DCIT Circle-2, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

claimed to be the real owner. When both these explanations were rejected, as they have been it was clearly upon to the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income must be concealed income. There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily ... source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature. The conclusion to which the Appellate Tribunal came appears to us to be amply warranted by the facts

Deshraj Kasana, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3663/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 148

against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida, dated 28.02.2018, arising out of order dated 23.12.2016, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad, u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Though the assessee

The Vithal Nagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-34(3)(5) Earlier 25(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3741/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Vithalnagar Co-Operative Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Hsg. Society Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Jai Hind Club Building Jvpd Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Scheme, 2Nd Floor, N.S. Road, Faceless Centre, Delhi 11, Vile Parle West, Income Tax Officer, 34(3)(5) Earlier Mumbai-400049. 25(3)(5), 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaat 3055 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shalin Divatia : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : 25/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Shalin Divatia

Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Dhaval Exim Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd., Acit, 5(1)(2), 117-A, 117-A, Panchratna Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera Maharishi Karve Road, House, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aadcd 0472 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr : 04/04/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah

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

raising following additional ground: Additional three more ground of appeals: Additional three more ground of appeals: 1. The learned income 1. The learned income-tax officer has erred in making reassessment tax officer has erred in making reassessment without issuing statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, resulting

Income Tax Officer Ward 59 6, New Delhi vs. Mamta Sehgal, Dilshad Garden

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

ITA 3860/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr. DR

BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3860/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Income-tax Officer Vs. Mamta Sehgal Ward – 30(3) 496, Pocket - D New Delhi Dilshad Garden, Delhi PAN – AVRPS 9681 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department

Devender Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward-1, Rohtak

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

ITA 2558/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2012-13 Devender Kumar, Vs Income-tax Officer, S/o Shri Nafe Singh, Ward-1, Rohtak. VPO Kheri Sampla, near Giji Road, Rohtak-124501 PAN- BTAPK8319Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Navin ... directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.08.2023, arising out of assessment order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Rohtak u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year