“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

Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

travel outside the record, that is to say, the return made by the assessee and the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer with a view to finding out new sources of income, not disclosed in either. It is contended by the Commissioner of Income-tax that the word ... tax after following a special procedure. The assessee contends that the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner extend to matters considered by the Income-tax Officer, and if a new source is to be considered, then the power of remand should be exercised. By the exercise of the power

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4438/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4437/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4436/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4435/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4434/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

M\S. Lexico Ceramics, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

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

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

Shri Prakashbhai Madhavjibhai Thummar, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 445/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2010-11 Prakashbhai Madhvjibhai Income-Tax Officer, Thummar, Vs Ward 3(1)(2), “Dharti”, 10-Krishna Nagar, Near Rajkot Swaminarayan Chowk, Rajkot Pan : Aeipt 6588 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 250

based video conferencing platform) ] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Prakashbhai Madhvjibhai Income-Tax Officer, Thummar, Vs Ward 3(1)(2), “Dharti”, 10-Krishna Nagar, Near Rajkot Swaminarayan Chowk, Rajkot PAN : AEIPT 6588 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee

ITO Ward-4(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashik Wollen Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

ITA 3021/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

directing waiver of interest, it was also made clear that section 41(1) of the Act will not be applicable. In fact the Income-tax Officer, in the first instance had issued notice under section 148 for reassessment of the assessment year 1994-95, but when faced with the order

M/S. Green Line Earth Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1104/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

were in respect of payments made on account of commission, interest, contract payments and salary. An order has been passed by the ld. Income-tax Officer, ITAs No.1102, 1103 & 1104//Del/2016 Ward-55, New Delhi u/s 201(1)/201(1A) on 29.03.2011 treating the assessee as an assessee in default ... payments made on account of commission and deemed dividend u/s 194 of the Act. An order has been passed by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-55, New Delhi u/s 201(1)/201(1A) on 29.03.2011 treating the assessee as an assessee in default in respect of Rs.86

M/S. Green Line (Delhi), New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1103/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

M/S. Green Line (Punjab), New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1102/DEL/2016[2002-03 (F.Y. 2001-02)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

Bimla Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi, Vs Ito, H.No.398/12, Parav Mohalla, Ward 1, Samalkha, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana – 124 001. Haryana – 132101. Pan: Aalca0777A

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

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

order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.11.2019 by Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether

Kapil Bhateja, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2628/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kapil Bhateja, Vs Ito, H.N.184, Jybli Ganj, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajban Bara Bazar, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh – 250001. Pan: Amjpb2717L

For Appellant: Ms Sunaina Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

assessment passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 04.02.2022 by the Income-tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether

Skg Engineering Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1293/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Skg Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Gripwel House, Block-5, Circle 23(2), Sector-C 6&7, New Delhi. Lsc Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. Pan: Aaacs3743F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1293/Del/2021 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034916910(1) Dated 17.08.2021 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.12.2019 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 23(2), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri A.T. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 12.12.2019 by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Circle 23(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether

Roks It Supprot Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7102/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153CSection 271Section 69C

PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7102 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Roks IT Support Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, A-21, 2nd Floor Lok Vihar, Ward-24(1), New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi-110034. PAN- AAFCR2681A APPELLANT RESPONDENT None Assessee represented by Department represented

Karun Carpets (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Spl. Range- 05, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4299/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Karun Carpets (P) Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 801-803, Tower-B, Spl. Range-05, Global Business Park, New Delhi. Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaack2331D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Grewal, Ca; Ms Harsimran Grewal, Ca & Shri Jaspal Singh, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.4299/Del/2019 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.13/18-19 Dated 19.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2017 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Special Range-5, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue On Merits To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Disallowance U/S 14A Of The Act To Rs 19,71,549/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.11.2017 by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Special Range-5, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue on merits to be decided in this appeal

Deepak Garg, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Krnal, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

regarded as a mere procedural requirement; it is only if the said notice is served on the assessee as required that the Income-tax Officer would be justified in taking proceedings against him. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then ... validity of the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be llegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income- tax v Namsukh Molilal