← 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

ADIT Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4944 /Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Vs Pcit, Ltd., Da-08, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Marg, Gurgaon Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca5582H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) has observed as under: "The reason is obvious. The position and junction of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence ... rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order

Ekalvya Gift Gaileries Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the issue of

ITA 866/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 142(1)

SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 865 /DEL/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 AND ITA No. 866 /DEL/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/s Ekalavya Gift Gaileries Vs Income-tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward 1(5), Faridabad. IPSO Legal, H-35, 1st Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 PAN- AADCE4842N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Ekalavya Gift Gaileries Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the issue of

ITA 865/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 142(1)

SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 865 /DEL/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 AND ITA No. 866 /DEL/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/s Ekalavya Gift Gaileries Vs Income-tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward 1(5), Faridabad. IPSO Legal, H-35, 1st Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 PAN- AADCE4842N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Suresh Electricals vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 146 taxmann.com 102 (Bangalore - Trib.) and in the case of Chase Security vs. Income-tax Officer [2022] 145 taxmann.com 150 (Bangalore - Trib.) , Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in the case of Cemetile Industries vs. Income-tax Officer [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209 (Pune

M/S. Khadi Grammodhyog Pratisthan, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Bangaluru / Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

mentioned in sub-section (1). Thirdly, the authorisation for the search cannot be in favour of any officer below the rank of an Income-tax Officer. Fourthly, the authorisation is for specific purposes enumerated in (i) to (v) in sub-section (1), all of which are strictly limited ... object of the search. Fifthly, when money, bullion, etc., is seized the Income-tax Officer is to make a summary enquiry with a view to determine how much of what is seized will be retained by him to cover the estimated tax liability and how much will have

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 68

presumptions, surmises, and conjectures cannot be sustained. 7. Our view get supports from ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Abdul Razaak vs. Income-tax Officer, (International Taxation)in ITA No. 131 (CHNY.) OF 2023[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18] JUNE 16, 2023 where it was observed that the assessee

Shakuntala Kamble (Legal Representative of Premchand Kamble), Thane vs. DCIT -Cent. Cir `, Thane

ITA 1764/MUM/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Pravin TembhekarFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 153ASection 253(3)

under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the Income-tax Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his judgment. When such an estimate is made it is in substitution

Alif Costructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1550/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash Bains, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 43C

appellant had sold two flats for an amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- each. In response to a query raised by the learned Income-tax officer during the assessment proceeding as regards the difference between the sale consideration and Stamp Duty value, it was submitted by the appellant vide letter

Shri Iqbal Sheikh, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officeer, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Upender Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 2

rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on SLP dismissed against High Court's orderin case of “Home Finders Housing Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer, Corporate Ward 2(3)[2018] 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC) that non-compliance of direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

based on tangible materials on record, is impermissible rendering the resultant order void. 314 ITR 81 (SC) CIT Vs. Green World Corporation The Income-tax Officer, while passing an order of assessment performs a judicial function. A revision application lies before the Commissioner. It is trite that the jurisdiction exercised

Sanjay Sumermal Soni, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Thane

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 183/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Income Tax Ward 2(2), Thane, Sanjay Sumermal Soni Room No. 208, 2 Nd Floor, A/201, Salasar Aarti, Qureshi Mansion, Temba Road, Vs. Bhayander West, Gokhale Road, Thane-400101 Naupada-Thane West, Thane 400602 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdeps5367L Assessee By : Shri R.M. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Sawant, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, DR
Section 143Section 68

several other cases such as i. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi - Trib.)[27- 03-2023] [27-03-2023] Fine Gujaranwala Jewellers vs. Income-tax Officer ii. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 492 (Amritsar - Trib.)[15-02-2023] [15-02-2023]Ganesh Rice Mills vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ... taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar - Trib.)[31-01-2023] [31-01-2023]Balwinder Kumar vs. Income-tax Officer Sanjay Sumermal Soni; A.Y. 17-18 iv. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mumbai - Trib.)[26-07-2022] [26-07-2022]R. S. Diamonds India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT v. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 588 (Chandigarh - Trib

Shri Mayur Bansal, Gwalior vs. The DCIT, Central, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)ANo

ITA 81/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 119Section 153ASection 156

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

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”. 14. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

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 ... 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”. (emphasis supplied) Similarly, the Jodhpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) in the case of Satya Narayan Dhoot

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3016/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 36(1)(iii)

Construction Pvt. Ltd. (iv) In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Income-tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diamond Investments & Properties (ITA No. 5537/Mum/2009 dated 29.07.2010), wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has upheld the addition made

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3711/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 36(1)(iii)

Construction Pvt. Ltd. (iv) In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Income-tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diamond Investments & Properties (ITA No. 5537/Mum/2009 dated 29.07.2010), wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has upheld the addition made

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3042/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 36(1)(iii)

Construction Pvt. Ltd. (iv) In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Income-tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diamond Investments & Properties (ITA No. 5537/Mum/2009 dated 29.07.2010), wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has upheld the addition made

Sitaram Narayandas Patel (Deceased) by His Legal Heir Ashok S Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22(3) at Present Jurisdiction With ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 901/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 901/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ Sitaram Narayandas Patel Acit, Circle-22(3) (Deceased) By His Legal Heir At Present Jurisdiction With Vs. Ashok Patel Acit, Circle-22(1) Plot No. 91, Ambey Vila, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Next To Grant Hyatt, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vakola Bridge, Shivaji Nagar, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpp6860D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri Tambe Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 & Order Dated 09.02.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee For Ay 2014-15, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Donations Of Rs.75 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Sahara Health & Education Society (Hereinafter “M/S. Sahara Health”) & Rs.25 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Tulsi Gramudyog Seva

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri TambeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 35A

case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite 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

Sitaram Narayandas Patel(Deceased) by His Legal Heir Ashok S. Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22(3) at Present Jurisdiction With ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 901/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ Sitaram Narayandas Patel Acit, Circle-22(3) (Deceased) By His Legal Heir At Present Jurisdiction With Vs. Ashok Patel Acit, Circle-22(1) Plot No. 91, Ambey Vila, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Next To Grant Hyatt, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vakola Bridge, Shivaji Nagar, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpp6860D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri Tambe Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 & Order Dated 09.02.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee For Ay 2014-15, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Donations Of Rs.75 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Sahara Health & Education Society (Hereinafter “M/S. Sahara Health”) & Rs.25 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Tulsi Gramudyog Seva

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri TambeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 35A

case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite 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

Shri Ishak, Indore vs. The ITO 5(4), Indore

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

ITA 13/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ishak Ito 5(4) Kasturbagram S.O. Mundla Indore Vs. Nayata, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akxpi 6044 D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 154

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY