“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

Sunjoss Internet Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands dismissed

ITA 3954/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11 Sunjoss Internet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer, 211, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kg Ward 24(3), New Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan: Aahcs3923N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh.Harpal Singh Kharab

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sunjoss Internet Pvt. Ltd. VersuS Income-tax Officer, 211, Ansal Bhawan, 16 KG Ward 24(3), New Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN: AAHCS3923N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh.Harpal

Shri Mir Zardari Qureshi, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 78/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.78/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Mir Zardari Qureshi, 167, Near Chunabhatti, Takia Para, Ward-6, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aadpq6523D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.148, dated 09.03.2018 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai was not a notice issued by an authority falling within the meaning of “Assessing Officer” i.e. either of the authorities

Shreemati Jaswanti Devi L/H of Late Shri Randhir Singh Dahiya, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

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

ITA 13/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.13/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

case and in law, the assessment order is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction for the assessment order was passed by the Income-tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai while notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 3 Smt. Jaswanti Devi L/h. Late Shri Randhir Singh Dahiya ... view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.148, dated 25.10.2016 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Bhilai was not a notice issued by an authority falling within the meaning of an “Assessing Officer”, i.e. either

Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 263

From the reading of all the above cited decisions, it is evident that the view taken in above decisions are unanimous that the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 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. If has been held by this court that

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Aashikyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9025/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

appreciating that the purpose of 3 Aashiyana Civil Contractors Pvt. Ltd. rule 46A is to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the Income-tax Officer as held in Rajkumar Srimal 102 ITR 525 (Cal), Ganpatrai & Sons Ltd. 24 1TR 362 (Bom).” 3. Facts taken from the order ... Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Vikrant Puri [2017] 82 taxmann.com 48 (Delhi-Trib.)  Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income-tax Officer, 23(2)(3), Mumbai, [2017] 80 taxmann.com 311 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 (2), Rajkot v. Smt. Jayshreeben Vallabhbhai Patel

Ruchi Jain, M/S Darsh Marketing, Ratlam vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 76/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)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

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

wherein the Hon’ble High Court at Para 2 of the order held as under: “In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for rejecting the book results shown by the assessee’s accounts or for not accepting the cash transactions as genuine cannot be accepted ... Tribunal, therefore, was not right, in our opinion, in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring that of the Income-tax Officer. There are no circumstances disclosed in the case nor is there any evidence or material on record which would justify the rejection

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is „erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

been defined in the law. 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 make certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous simply because, the order should have been written more elaborately ... Case may be visualized where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimates himself. On perusal of the records

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

follows : "What was urged before us was that in a case where an assessee has furnished no return at all before the Income-tax Officer, it should be presumed for the purposes of section 28(1)(b) that he has furnished a return of his income intimating the Income-tax

Paras Prints (Pvt.) Ltd., Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir. 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.273/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Paras Prints (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. The Acit, 276, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat, Circle -2 (1)(1), Surat-395001. Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp3787H

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Navinchandra Mafatlal v CIT [1955] 27 ITR 245, 261, affirmed, [1961] 42 ITR 53 (SC): “If an order is made by an income-tax Officer and even though he may state that he has not made it under any particular section of the income-tax Act, or even

Sh. Nirbhay Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

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

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

true that the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening the assessment. At the same time,, it is to be borne

Sh. Nirbhay Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

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

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

Smt. Bani Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

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

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

previous year? That was a case which related to Assessment Year 1984-1985. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee which was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

Mahamadali Adam Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Offocer, Ward 1(2), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 90/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mahamadali Adam Patel Income Tax Officer, Apana Nagar Society, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Vs At P.O. Vagara, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Adxpp 0699 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Krutarth K Desai, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 03.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 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 27.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)/ Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Appellant Was Hold The Status Of Agriculturist, During The Year Under Consideration I.E. Ay 2017-18. The Entire Money Received Was The Income From Agriculture Activities Which Are Wholly Exempt Mahamadali Adam Patel From Taxation Purview. Hence The Appellant Is Not Liable To Pay Any Tax On This Income Addition Made By The Authority & Hence This Appeal. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Appreciating The Factual Matrix Of The Case & Therefore The Addition Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 144Section 254(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI