“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

Shri Altaf Husain Shah, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Srinagar

ITA 13/ASR/2021[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nazia Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253Section 3

brevity the Act), date of order 29.01.2020 for assessment year 2001-02. The impugned order was originated from the order of ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Srinagar (in brevity AO), order passed u/s. 144/147, date of order 30.12.2008. 2 Altaf Husain Shah v. ITO 2. The brief fact

Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36

Further, when a regular assessment is made it has to be presumed that it has been passed upon proper application of mind. The Income-tax Officer is not only the adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot be remain passive in face of an order when it calls for further ... given to the word "erroneous" in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an Inquiry prudent that the word "erroneous" in section 263 includes

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

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 ... 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

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Jai Bhagwan, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jai Bhagwan, Vs Income-tax Officer, S/o Sh. Ram Dhari, Ward-2, Panipat. C/o J.B. Sharma, Adv., BMK Market, Near Hotel Hive, GT Road, Panipat-132103 PAN- AQUPB5913H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Shree Jivraj Residency, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 112/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 112/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Shree Jivraj बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Township Vs. Soor Prabhav, 14- Panchnath Plot, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abhfs3670C .. (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 14/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 14/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 16.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2009-10. Ito Vs. Shree Jivraj Township - 2- 2. The Matter Relates To The Deduction Under Section 80Ib(10) Of The Act Of Rs.3,49,29,737/- Profit Earned By The Assessee From The Construction Of Project.

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80I

BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 112/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income-tax Officer M/s. Shree Jivraj बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Township Vs. Soor Prabhav, 14- Panchnath Plot, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR

Saif Partners India IV Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Int. Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1138/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Singh – CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent--if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

been held as under: Page 11…………The live link or close nexus which should be there between the material before the income-tax officer in the present case and the belief which he was to form regarding the escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment because

M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.87/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-Tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

clear that the prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto moto under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions ... erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue—recourse cannot

Alpha Pacific Engineers Private Limited, Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P Praveen, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The Income-tax Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard ... letter in writing. All these are part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income-tax Officer on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order

Shri Nitin Bothra, Indore vs. He PCIT -1 Indore, Indore

ITA 108/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

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

Vinita Chaudhary, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward -4(5), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _418/DEL/2022 [Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinita Chaudhary, Vs Income-tax Officer, H. No. 525, Sector-10, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon-122001. PAN- AFLPC1698C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Chourasia, CA Department

Shree Aggar Dhara Co-Op Trift & Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(5), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical

ITA 2294/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Aggar Dhara Co-op Vs Income-tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Limited Ward-39(5), New Delhi. F-22/141, 2nd Floor, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. PAN- AAHAS6636E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee

Sng Metals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Faridabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16 SNG Metals Private Limited, Vs Income-tax Officer, Plot No. 44, Sector-6, Ward-2(4), Faridabad. Faridabad-121006. PAN- AALCS7981C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Ms. Pranjali Arora, CA & Shri Narinder

Rachna Mediratta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -13(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6498/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Rachna Mediratta, Versus Income-Tax Officer, A-11, First Floor, Ward 13(3), New Delhi. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepm4186F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Verma, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rachna Mediratta, VersuS Income-tax Officer, A-11, First Floor, Ward 13(3), New Delhi. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. PAN: AAEPM4186F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent

Setech Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 5759/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5758 & 5759/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Setech Eelectronics Ltd., VersuS Income-tax Officer, 49, Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg Ward 3(4), Noida. Extn., New Delhi PAN: AAACS1057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 40/Del/2020 (in ITA No. 5758/Del/2019 Assessment Year ... Income-tax Officer, VersuS Setech Eelectronics Ltd., Ward 3(4), Noida. 49, Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CA Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.02.2023 Date of order : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER BENCH

Setech Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 5758/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

Rakshita Patel, Delhi vs. AO Ward 49(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri VedJain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.P. Kipgen, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54

Suraj Bhan, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1637/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. U.S. Aggarwal, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.M. Singh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271F

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Suraj Bhan, H.No. 396, Vill. VersuS Income-tax Officer, Majara(Bohar) PO-Asthal Ward-4, Rohtak. Bohar, Rohtak PAN: BLVPB6735L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. U.S. Aggarwal, Ld. Adv. Revenue

Sanjiv Dutta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6915/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryasstt. Yr: _2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: _2011-12 Sanjiv Dutta, Vs Income-tax Officer, DD-232, Wesytern Marg, Saidulajab, Ward-32(2), New Delhi. M.B. Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030. PAN-AEOPD1198N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented