“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

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do.” (emphasis supplied

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 wherein the Court held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question ... make addition. The court held as follows: 8. Assailing the said judgment of the learned Tribunal learned counsel for the appellant submits that Income-tax Officer did not consider the material evidence showing the creditworthiness and also other documents, viz., confirmatory statements of the persons, of having advanced cash amount

Ozone Overseas P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: “1. That

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue ; or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Invest Smart India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 331/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aftpg1095F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raja Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Did Not File Its Return Of Income Nor

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 “(2)[ No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made-(a)by the Income-tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand rupees; (b)by the ][Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] [ Substituted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 3, for " Assistant Commissioner" (w.e.f

Akhilesh Shukla, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 160/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Income-Tax Officer, 18/2, Rizwan Bagh, 1(1), बनाम/ Vip Road, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afops5580E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Income-tax Officer, 18/2, Rizwan Bagh, 1(1), बनाम/ VIP Road, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AFOPS5580E Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, CA and Shri

Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2 (4), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) PAN: BLXPP4909C Assessee by Shri S.S.Solanki, CA & AR Revenue by Shri

Chenniappan Sudha, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

ITA 1273/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056748085(1) dated 04.10.2023. The assessment order was framed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Erode for the assessment year 2012-13 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order

Sme Pool Series V Aug 2016, Mumbai vs. Income- Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 139Section 194LSection 201

dismissing the appeal filed against the order passed under section 201 ('the order) of the Income-tax, Act 1961 ('the Act') of the Income-tax Officer (TDS)-2(2)(1) [learned AO'] and by treating the Appellant as assessee in default. The learned CIT(A) further erred in facts ... dismissing the appeal filed against the order passed under section 201 ('the order') of the Income-tax, Act 1961 ('the Act') of the Income-tax Officer (TDS)-2(2)(1) ['learned AO'] and by treating the Appellant as 'assessee in default'. The learned CIT(A) further erred in facts

Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 259/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd. Ward-3(5) D.No.6-56, Nunna Village Vijayawada Vijayawada Rural Krishna District [Pan : Aaban2838D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada is not justified in disallowing the claim for deduction under section 80P: i. Being beyond the scope of the reasons for which the case

Kotari Srinivasa Rao, Undrajavaram Mandalam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise

Saravanan Priya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1245/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

sale with a view to evading tax finds support from the decision of this Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income-Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr. : [1981]131ITR597(SC) . Section 52 in the Income-Tax Act, 1961, which has now been deleted, came up for consideration before ... Court. Very briefly put that section provided that where a person acquired a capital asset from an assessee connected with him and the Income-Tax Officer had reason to believe that the transfer was effected with a view to avoid or reduce the liability of the assessee under Section

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Tata Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1340/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1340/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2016-17) आअसं.2374/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18) Tata Steel Limited Bombay House, 24, Homimody Street Fort Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact2803M ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "सह, लेखाकार सद"य के

Universal Engineers, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 49(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1649/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143Section 154

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1649 /DEL/2023 [Assessment Year: 2009-10 Universal Engineers, Vs Income-tax Officer, 317, Phase-VI, Udyog Vihar, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. PAN-AABFU1139K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

Manish Kumar Mittal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6882/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 44A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Kumar Mittal, Vs Income-tax Officer, 262/263, Nawada Bazar, Ward-43(2), New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 PAN-AGDPM6625 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income ... agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.' 14. The substantial questions of law sought to be raised in Para No. 3 of the grounds of appeal are pure

M/S Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 27/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 15Section 250Section 68Section 9

impugned order was emanated from 2 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Kolkata (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.03.2015. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds

Rajesh Agarwal, Vidhyadhara Nagar Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 4(1), ITO Jaipur

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

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM AER Ailet Gi. / ITA. No. 22/JPR/2024 faeieet af / Assessment Years : 2014-15 Rajesh Agarwal Gilt Income-tax Officer, A-25, Vivekanand Colony, Vs. Ward-4(1), Outside Chandole Gate, Jaipur. Jaipur. Yar cra a. / sensaik W./ PAN/GIR No.: AFMPA 2541 K arfrereff / Appellant ... order of the Tribunal and has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Cenzer Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer passed in [Notice of Mation Nos. 492 & 493 of 2015, dated 15-1-2016), wherein this court declined to condone delay of 865 days

Delhi Traders, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(4), Bhopal

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Delhi Traders, Income-Tax Officer, G-2/119-A, Milestone, 2(4), 100 Complex, Trilanga, Bhopal बनाम/ Gulmohur Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aahfd 1362 P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv., Shri Gagan Tiwari & Shri Arun Dwivedi, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 68

TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Delhi Traders, Income-tax Officer, G-2/119-A, Milestone, 2(4), 100 Complex, Trilanga, Bhopal बनाम/ Gulmohur Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) PAN: AAHFD 1362 P Assessee by Shri