← 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

Santhoor Umesh Mallya Nirmala, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1011/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing
Section 147Section 69B

BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Santhoor Umesh Mallya The Income-tax Officer, Nirmala, NFAC, New Delhi./ W/o Umesh Mallya, The Income-tax Officer, Kadri Temple Road, Kadri Vs. Circle-2(1), Mangaluru-575 004. Mangalore

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

found to be justified. In this regard judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs Income-tax Officer [2022] 136 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2022] 440ITR 359 (Bombay) is relevant. In that case Hon'ble High Court held as under:- "In the case ... observed as under; “ As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 647/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

found to be justified. In this regard judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs Income-tax Officer [2022] 136 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2022] 440ITR 359 (Bombay) is relevant. In that case Hon'ble High Court held as under:- "In the case ... observed as under; “ As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted

M/S Ayush Ajay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT Central-(1), Indore

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

insufficiency of the enhanced compensation. Can it be said that the final determination by the highest Court of the compensation would entitle the Income-tax Officer, notwithstanding the period of limitation fixed under the Income- tax Act, to reopen the assessment in which he had included the initial Page

Shree Lakshmi Mahila Souharda Credit Co Operative Limited, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 1021/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale
Section 115BSection 249(4)(b)Section 68Section 80P

BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Lakshmi Mahila The Income-tax Officer, Souharda Credit CO-operative Ward-1, Ltd., Vs. Ramanagara. 1, Shivamaruti Estate, Mylanahalli, Udukunte Post, Solur Hobli Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District-562127. PAN : AAGAS

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh where it was stated that while proceeding under sub-section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evidence produced by the assessee as he considers to be false, yet if he proposes to make ... Visvanatha Sastri reported in (1954) 26 ITR 1 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that “the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed before any 14 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh where it was stated that while proceeding under sub-section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evidence produced by the assessee as he considers to be false, yet if he proposes to make ... Visvanatha Sastri reported in (1954) 26 ITR 1 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that “the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed before any conclusion is arrived at. The assessee has a right

Palak Highrise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 218/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : “We will straightaway agree with the assessee’s submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.” That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before ... aside the assessment order in spite 6 Palak Highrise Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee ?” In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question which

Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sawai Madhopur

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 615/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 615/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Jagdish Prasad Sharma cuke Income-tax Officer, Vs. 516, Mahaveer Nagar, Near Shree Ward-2, Sawai Madhopur. Ram Mandir, Tonk Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR

Shri. Rahul Udayashankar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 11Section 143Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Shri Rahul Udayashankar, Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Represented by his GPA Holder International Taxation, Shri C Udayashankar, Ward-2(1), 851-C, 17th G Main, Bengaluru. 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru ... Baba Ji Rice Mills Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 41 PHT 197 (PVT) d. K.Joseph Jacob Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer 190 ITR 464 (Ker). e. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker). f. Shanthilal Godawat Et others Vs. ACIT, ITAT, Jodhpur Bench

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5612/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

dealt with also under the 1961 Act differently. Section 44 thereof, as noticed hereinbefore, begins with anon obstante clause. The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in passing the orders of assessment is limited. Keeping in view the fact that the business carried out by the assesse is not governed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5611/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

dealt with also under the 1961 Act differently. Section 44 thereof, as noticed hereinbefore, begins with anon obstante clause. The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in passing the orders of assessment is limited. Keeping in view the fact that the business carried out by the assesse is not governed

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

Trib.) held as follows:- “Return of income of assessee was Rs. 12 lakhs - As per CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income-tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Haldia and none other - But, notice was issued ... fully well that he had no jurisdiction over assessee - Whether, therefore, notice issued by Asstt. Commissioner was invalid and consequently assessment framed by Income-tax Officers becomes void since issue of notice under section 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011

Solvent Real Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

ITA 994/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) ii) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd.v. Income-tax Officer [1997] 223 ITR 809 (SC) iii) Spice Enfotainment vs. Commissioner of Service Tax in ITA 475/2011 dated 2.8.2011(Del) The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that

ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Solvent Real Estate Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 879/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) ii) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd.v. Income-tax Officer [1997] 223 ITR 809 (SC) iii) Spice Enfotainment vs. Commissioner of Service Tax in ITA 475/2011 dated 2.8.2011(Del) The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that

Rohan Care Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 992/BANG/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate –
Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 8

BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2022-23 Rohan Care Foundation, The Income-tax Officer, #102/103, National Convent Ward-4(1)(3), Road, Vittal Nagar 2nd Stage, Vs. Bangalore. ISRO Layout, Bangalore-560 111. PAN : AALCR 3121 R APPELLANT ... report in Form 10B and condonation can be accepted if the Appellant produces the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by providing sufficient cause. VIII. The learned CIT(A) has erred in considering that the CBDT has authorized

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central, Kanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

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

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

433/JP/2023 BALAJI JEWELLERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR the appeal. The question again assumes that it was for the Income-tax Officer to indicate the source of the income before the income could be held taxable and unless he did so, the assessee was entitled to succeed. That ... judgment, the correct legal position. Where there is an explained cash credit, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Income-tax Officer to show that that income is from any particular source

Bharat Bhushan Gandhi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2889/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Bhushan Gandhi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 5/2600, Gali No.5, Beadon Pura, Ward 51(5), Delhi-1100 05 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Shri Tarun Chanana & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04. 01.2024 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 68

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD: JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Bhushan Gandhi, Vs. Income-tax Officer, 5/2600, Gali No.5, Beadon Pura, Ward 51(5), Delhi-1100 05 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Shri Tarun