“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

Tikaram Sharma, Palwal vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Faridabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1423/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tikaram Sharma, Vs Income-tax Officer, VPO Khambi Saraiya Mohalla, Ward-2(4), Faridabad. The. Hodal, Palwal-121106. PAN- AJWPS4711M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Anand Pandey, Adv. Department represented

Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 by the Income-Tax officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam is null and ab initio void as the Income-Tax officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam has not assumed jurisdiction properly ... reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have been recorded by Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam and it is the same officer who issued the notice under section 148 dated 19.03.2014 more so in the absence of any order section 127 transferring the case of the assessee from Income

Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

M/S Aadhar Associates, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 300/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

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

aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according ... 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

Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, Daman & Diu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 80GSection 80I

enemy action. The Government paid the assessee in 1944 a certain- amount as compensation which exceeded the original cost of the ship. The Income-tax Officer included the difference between the original cost and the written down value of the ship in the total income of the assessee

Arun I. Keswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 727/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee

Pratap Singh Yadav, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1898/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17 Prtatap Singh Yadav, Versus Dcit, Central Circle 7, 510, Sector 31-32A, Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aahpy8387M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 153C

side-stepped causing prejudice to the assessee by bringing to naught the object for which it is issued. [See: K.P. Varghese vs. Income-tax Officer 1, [1981] 7 Taxman 13 (SC); Also see: UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., (1999) 4 SCC 599], ” 18. The argument advanced

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1862/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus Acit, Central Circle 14, C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaccr1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Kishan Singh and Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1688/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Singh & Associates, Vs Income-tax Officer, D-II/263, Madangir, Ward-28(7), New Delhi Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110062 PAN: AAGFK8991A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Vijay Kumar

Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1456/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

Appeal are allowed

ITA 308/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 234B

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, Sector-128, Noida. Ward-2(1), Noida. PAN- AADCK9974B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Shri V.K. Garg, Adv., & Shri Sudarshan

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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 ... Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Ravi Sherwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 64/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

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

assessee with an 6 Ravi Sherwani Vs. ACIT-4(1), Raipur income declared upto Rs.10 lac would fall within the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer (ITO); and (ii) a non-corporate assessee with an income declared above Rs.10 lacs would fall within the jurisdiction of ACs/DCs. In support ... then we cannot remain oblivion of the fact that as the assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 had thereafter been framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Bhilai, who as per the aforesaid Instruction No.1/2011 (supra) was divested of any jurisdiction over the case of the assessee

Smt Hafiz Shaikh, Dewas vs. The ITO Ward-1, Dewas

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

ITA 56/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

Section 45Section 45(3)Section 54Section 54B

transfer of land. 10. Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Asha George v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur in ITA No. 114 OF 2012 dated JANUARY 16, 2013, it was held that unless assessee establishes that land sold

Shri Bhavesh Bhuva, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunrise Education Trust vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) [2018] 90 taxmann.com 74 (Guj). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 043-SC, Mumtaz Hazi Mohd Memon

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

which reads as under :- “The main argument which is urged by Mr.Nambiar in support of this appeal is that respondent No.1, the Income-tax Officer, who has issued the impugned notice, has no jurisdiction to assess the appellant for the income in question, because he contends that even according ... escape taxation altogether. In other words, the respondent’s case clearly is that the notices issued against the two brothers by their respective Income-tax Officers are intended to determine who is responsible to pay tax for the income in question; now though Mr.Nambiar wanted to argue that protective

Bani Pershad, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(5), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical

ITA 456/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Beni Pershad, Vs Income-tax Officer, J-14, Haus Khas, Ward-32 (5), New Delhi New Delhi-110016 PAN- AHKPP2346M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Narender Goyal, CA Department represented