“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

Kala Ramesh Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 581/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Jitendra Singh.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Abhishek Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

expressions as noticed above, we may mention that these two expressions were examined and interpreted in great detail by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. That was also a case where notice under section ... relevant year. Supreme Court observed that in such a case, two conditions would have to be satisfied before an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue notice. These two conditions are - 1. He must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and 2. He must

ITO-41(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Keyur Dilip Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1187/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 271(1)(c)

TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1187 /Mum/23 (Assessment year 2012-13) Income-tax Officer-41(3)(2) vs KEYUR DILIP PAREKH Kautilya Bhavan, Room No.713 1701, Divyam Residency Mumbai 7th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex Malad East S.O. Bandra

Anand Surana, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 192/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer 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 ... material and he would be entitled to take that new material into account. If the material, which was not available to the Income-Tax Officer when he made the assessment could thus be taken into consideration by the Commissioner after holding an enquiry, there is no reason why the material

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 2(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Sahakari Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaaj0607P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263(1)

reopened. Whether this principle is justified in the English law, it has no place under the Indian Income tax Act. When an Income-tax Officer proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself inter alia, two questions, namely, (i) what is the system of accountancy ... particular accounting year, he shall include the said income in the assessment of the succeeding assessment year. No power is conferred on the Income-tax Officer under the Act, to relate back an income that accrued or arose in a subsequent year to another earlier year on the ground that

Kalaben Pramod Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(2)(1), Vashi

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

ITA 1104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1104/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kalaben Pramod Shah बिधम/ Ito-27(2)(1) 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Vashi G-6, Lal Ashish Bldg, Vs. Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar Railway Station, Vashi- East, Mumbai-400077. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamps4027P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Mall Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.12.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) Wherein The Ao Has Added The Entire Purchase & Sale Consideration On Of Rs.26,52,250/- As Income & Ignored The Contention The Profit From The Transaction Should Be Taxed. 3. Regarding The Cause Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal, The Ld. Ar For Assessee, Brought To My Notice That Assessee Is An Individual Who Is More Than 75 Years Old Lady & Her Husband Was Looking After The Commodity Business & Filing Of Return Of Income Etc. However, During The Re-Assessment Proceedings, Her Husband Had By-Pass

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj MallFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 144

setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Kalaben Pramod Shah 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

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3557/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income tax officer while making

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

Simple Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Meerut

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1961/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 69

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1961 /DEL/2022 [Assessment Year: 2011-12 Simple Singh, Vs Income-tax Officer, 3/203, Shardha Puri, Ward-2(5), Meerut Meerut-250001. PAN- AWMPS7877F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. R.P. Narang, Adv. & Sh. R.K. Jain

Rajendra Shankar Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1400/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. _1400/DEL/2021 ssessment Year: 2015-16 Rajendra Shankar Singhal, Vs Income-tax Officer, W-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Ward-28(2), New Delhi. Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 PAN- AFBPS3911C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri

Jindal Construction, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 32(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9535/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 9535 /DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jindal Construction, Vs Income-tax Officer, Pcket A-8/77, Kalkaji Extension, Ward-32(2), New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. PAN- AACFJ9618F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

Shri Rama Mepa Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 67/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

I.T.A No. 69/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 Shri Rama Mepa Odedara vs. ITO facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact

Dinesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

ITA 17/JPR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

that such excess amount of Rs. 2,35,806/- have been received by the assesse appellant therefore complete addition liable to be deleted, Income-tax Officer v. Zain Constructions (2020) 113 Taxmann.com513 (SC) 4. UP TO 110% EXCESSIVE VALUATION IS PERMITTED; The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

Iris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ishraq M. ContractorFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessment order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue, and if one of them is absent, i.e., if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to Revenue, recourse cannot

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the Income-tax Officer might have discovered, the Legislature has put in the Explanation, which has been set out above. In view of the Explanation, it will ... case of SBI v. ACIT in WP 271 of 2018 vide order dated 15.06.2018: “6. We note that the Apex Court in Income-Tax Officer V/s. Techspan India Private Limited and Another, reported in [2018] 404 ITR 10(SC) reiterated the settled principle of law laid down by Page

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 35D

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 35D

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 35D

Satpal Kaswan, Haryana vs. Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1848/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Ummed Kuntal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1847 & 1848/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Satpal Kaswan, Versus Income-tax Officer, C/o CA Ummed Kuntal CSC-5, Ward 4(1) Gurgaon. A-1 Block, Shopping Centre, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. PAN: AZFPK0679R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee

Satpal Kaswan, Haryana vs. Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1847/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Ummed Kuntal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Smt. Madhviben Nileshkumar Gantra, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (2) (5), Rajkot

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

ITA 47/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 47/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Smt. Madhaviben Nileshkumar Income-Tax Officer, Ganatra, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), 1St Floor Tirupati Appt., Rajkot. Rajputpara, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Asdpg2945B

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68oSection 69A

MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 47/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Smt. Madhaviben Nileshkumar Income-tax Officer, Ganatra, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), 1st Floor Tirupati Appt., Rajkot. Rajputpara, Rajkot-360001. PAN: ASDPG2945B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani