“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

Prashant Pitti, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3032/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2016-17 Prashant Pitti, Vs. Acit, C-179, Central Circle-4, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. New Delhi-110095. Pan Awxpp4522D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69A

order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof he may set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power ... conterminous 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." Keeping in view the above facts and discussion and in order to remove any ambiguity, it is held that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 14A

section (2) of the section provided for allowing deduction for a bad debt in an earlier or later previous year, if the Income-tax Officer was satisfied that the debt did not become bad in the year in which it was written off by the assessed. These clauses have become

M R Apparels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 198/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, 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

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

belief. 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 his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because ... true that the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At the same time we have to bear in mind that

The ITO, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR

Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

expression "Assessing Officer" has been defined to include Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

Karamveer Electronics Limited, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1223/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Bhadauria, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent--if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

submitted that with context to above, he placed reliance on the decision of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Anantpur Kalpana vs. Income-tax Officer [2022] 138 taxmann.com 141 where the Tribunal while considering the issue of the implication of section 68 of the Act during demonetization held as under

DCIT, Central Circle -III, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Puran Chand, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 559/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 292CSection 69A

with the affidavit as sufficient proof on this point If it was not to be accepted as a sufficient proof either by the Income-tax Officer or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of income-lax or by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee should have been called upon ... cither party I he appellants took it that the affidavits of these parties were enough and neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner not the Income-tax Officer who was present at the hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considered it necessary to call for them in order

Vibgyor Enterprises, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vibgyor Enterprises Pcit (Central)-1, Kolkata Ground Foor, 380A, Prince Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Anwar Shah Road, Chowringhee Square, Lake Gardens S.O., Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700045 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfv8713B Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pn Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri PN Barnwal, DR

Section 133ASection 263

section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already held Vibgyor Enterprises ... what is erroneous. It must be an order which is not in accordance with the law or which has been passed by the Income-tax Officer without making any enquiry in undue haste. We have also held as to what is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order

Shree Goverdhan Nathji Haveli Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions-Ward-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate

Section 11

relief must be such as is, on the basis of the information available in the return, accounts or documents, prima facie inadmissible. The Income-tax Officer therefore, has no power to go beyond or behind the return, accounts or documents, either in allowing or in disallowing any such deduction, allowance ... documents or accounts shows that the deduction claimed is prima facie inadmissible, such deduction cannot be disallowed at the intimation stage. If the Income-tax Officer is not satisfied with the claim for deduction, or if he requires any further information or any further evidence in that connection

Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, Thane vs. Mumbai-W-91, Vashi Navimumbai

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

ITA 3377/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Mumbai-W-91, Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Office No. 227, Central Facility Vs. Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Building, 3Rd Floor, Sector-19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Aacas 6296 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar ShindeFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Sangam Nagari Sahakri Patpedhi Maryadit, Navimumbai vs. Mum-W-91-Range-222, Navimumbai

ITA 3376/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Shinde

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH "SMC" MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Kamal Kumar Kothari, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3166/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI.NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MISS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1489/Mum/2020 (Assessment year : 2014-15) Seema A Talesara vs Income-tax Officer-19(3)(3), 7B, Abilasa CHS, 46, August Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Kranti Marg, Gowalia Tank, Grand Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400 036 PAN : AACPT2912Q

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 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

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 153C

that the Hon’ble we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Vikram Sujeet tax Officer v. Vikram Sujeet Kumar (2023) 149 taxmann.com 123 (SC) has held that said Kumar (2023) 149 taxmann.com ... decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohanlal Champalal Jain v. Income anlal Champalal Jain v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Thane tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Thane [2019] 102 taxmann.com 293 (Bombay), Arvind Sahdeo Gupta v. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 293 (Bombay), Arvind Sahdeo

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

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 with 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.” The principle which has been laid down

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

Shantaben Fathechand Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6698/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 250

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI.NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MISS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6698/Mum/2019 (Assessment year : 2014-15) Shantaben Fathechand Mehta vs Income-tax Officer 29(3)(4), 7/B, 2nd Floor, Poornima Mumbai, C-10, 3rd Floor, Room Building, M.G. Road, Mulund No.308, Pratyakshakar Bhavan (West), Mumbai

National Udyog, Hisar vs. Pr CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 1272/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)