← 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

Sumit Juneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 62(5), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5802/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40A(3)Section 44A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Sumit Juneja, Vs Income-tax Officer, Hotel Arjun, 5084 Main Bazar, Ward-62(5), New Delhi. Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. PAN- AIEPJ3047J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

Ompal, Meerut vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), M

In the result ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 3986/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 54B

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ompal, Vs Income-tax Officer, Village Nagla Tashi, Meerut Ward-2(1), Meerut. 282, Boundary Road, Civil Line, Meerut. PAN- ABPPO1191G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

Isolux Corsan Power Concession India P.Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2164/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Isolux Corsan Power Vs Income-tax Officer, Concession India Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2(1), Gurgaon. 2nd Floor, Block – Two, Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 PAN- AACCI4322C APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Navbharat Charitable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 385/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

following conditions are to be fulfilled by the assessee for condonation of delay. That the failure to give notice to the Income-Tax Officer under section 11(2) of the Act and investment of the money in the prescribed securities was due only to oversight. That the trustees

Navbharat Charitable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 384/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

following conditions are to be fulfilled by the assessee for condonation of delay. That the failure to give notice to the Income-Tax Officer under section 11(2) of the Act and investment of the money in the prescribed securities was due only to oversight. That the trustees

Navbharat Charitable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 383/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

following conditions are to be fulfilled by the assessee for condonation of delay. That the failure to give notice to the Income-Tax Officer under section 11(2) of the Act and investment of the money in the prescribed securities was due only to oversight. That the trustees

Gaurav Rastogi (Legal Heir of Late Smt. Asha Rastogi (Deceased)), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2708/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _2708/DEL/2022 [Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gaurav Rastogi, legal heir of Vs Income-tax Officer, Late Smt. Asha Rastogi (Deceased) Ward-1(5), Gurgaon 16, Bodhi Marg, DLF, Phase-1, Gurgaon-122002 PAN- AARPR2306M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Sanjiv Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

ITA 1729/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjiv Gupta, G-602, Versus Dcit, Central Circle-1, Pearl Gateway Tower, Noida. Sector-44, Noida. Pan: Adypg8000D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukul Gupta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetandra Kumar Kale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 54F

Assessee before the ld. Commissioner also claimed that proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Act have been initiated illegally by a non jurisdictional Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Noida without verification of the return of Assessee and without verifying completed assessment u/s. 153A read with section

Daya Sapra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 280/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 250

DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2008-09 Daya Sapra, Vs Income-tax Officer, H-1481, 1st Floor, Ward-23(2), New Delhi. C.R. park, New Delhi-110019 PAN- AQOPS3831R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri R.S. Singhvi

Rohit Kumar Chhabra, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 719/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _719/DEL/2020 [Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rohit Kumar Chhabra, Vs Income-tax Officer, H. No. 369, Sector-14, Ward-2(2), Faridabad. NIT Faridabad-121005 PAN- AGXPC1601J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri

Sainik Filling Station, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 4(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 40A(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sainik Filling Station, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o H. No. 620, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. C/o M/s RRA TaxIndia, D-28, South Extension, Part

Sri Shyam Charan Sewa Trust, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions ) Ward, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 214/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 8o

furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause”. The assessee had rectified the defect within stipulated time and the procedure for filing Audit Report

Corus Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

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

U V Buildcon (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 696/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 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

Naveen Chandra Bhatt, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2690/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19 Naveen Chandra Bhatt, Vs Income-tax Officer, E-48/4, Okhla Industrial Area-II, Ward-71(2), Delhi. New Delhi-110020. PAN- ALPPB2384N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Yudhister Mehtani

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 365/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12) Income-tax Officer M/s. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 364/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12) Income-tax Officer M/s. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 363/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12) Income-tax Officer M/s. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 362/RJT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12) Income-tax Officer M/s. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर

Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshchandra Narharishankar Principal Commissioner Of Upadhyay, 5/1203, Main Income-Tax-1, Room No. 123, Vs. Road, Haripura, Surat-395003 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpu 1094 J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

interest of revenue. 16. We note that Revenue had no right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against any order passed by the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, this provision, corresponding to section 33B of the 1922 Act, was enacted to arm the Commissioner with powers of revision whenever there ... case is well settled. The Ld.PCIT can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. The Income-tax Officer is not only