“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

Sobh Ram, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 2033/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satyam Aneja, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sobh Ram, S/o Dalip Singh, VersuS Income-tax Officer, H.No. 54, Village & Tehsil- Ward-4, Panipat. Israna, Panipat. PAN: ARKPR1660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Satyam Aneja, Ld. Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Meenakshi

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

respect of enhanced charges did not reflect the real income of the assessee and could not be brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer. In the present case also the entry which was initially made as interest was reversed the next year because in fact the nature

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6277/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon vs. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5989/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon vs. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5988/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6357/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6346/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

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

Shri Iqbal Singh, Moga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

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

H. N. Agri Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

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

ITA 94/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

each on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, came into force, and when the Income-tax Officer called upon it to explain how these currency notes came into its possession, the assessee claimed that the notes represented part of its cash balance which ... that date, stood at Rs. 34,313. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation and assessed the amount of Rs. 32,000 represented by these currency notes as suppressed income of the assessee from some undisclosed source. The Tribunal took into account the statement of sales relating

Shri Praful Gautambhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 163/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

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

Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

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

Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-78(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 139Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/s Welgrow Hotels (P) Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Ward-78(4), New Delhi. New Delhi-110017 PAN:AAACW5407C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by: Sh. S Krishnan, Adv. Department

Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore vs. Pr CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

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 ... Commissioner for that I.T.A No. 157/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 9 Shri Hari Kishan Goyal vs. Pr. CIT-2 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 an assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies(P) Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 230/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.230/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Technologies (P.) Ltd., 5Th Room No.505, Floor, Vs. 4, Gopal Nagar, Nandeda Char Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Rasta, Gidc, Bardoli–394601 Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7432C िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 80I

Legislature in the first part of section 80J, sub-section 6A), in connection with the admissibility of deductions to be considered by the Income-tax Officer when he frames the assessment. So far as the second part which is procedural in nature goes, the mentioning of the requirement of filing ... deduction and the proper stage for considering as to whether he is entitled to such deduction or not would be reached when the Income-tax Officer sits down to frame the assessment and not before that and if, before that, the assessee puts his house in order, he could

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Surat vs. Shri Amatlal Devchandbhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 218/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.C.I.T., Late Amratlal Devchandbhai Patel, Central Circle-4, Through L/H-Jignesh Amritlal Patel, Vs. Surat. 8, Pratistha Park, Sarelawadi, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3569 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269TSection 271ESection 27ISection 292B

Sec.27IE of the Act without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja Vs. Income-tax Officer(in SCA No.15310 of 2018) wherein the issue has been elaborately discussed and arrived at the ratio decidendi that when there is active participation

ITO Ward - 3(3), Noida vs. Satyajeet Pandey, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1370/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Komal Goel, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kalp Saraiya, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Income-tax Officer, VersuS Satyajeet Pandey, H.No. Ward 3(3), Noida. B-179, Omaxe NRI City, Sec-Omega-2, Noida. PAN: APZPP6148L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee

M/S Shiragao Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S. Gadadi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” c) In the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Memises Co-op Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer-21(2)(1), 6547/MUM/2017, AY 14-15 (ITAT-Mumbai), Date of Order-25/04/2018. “9. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations

M/S M/S Goyal Construction Company, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 17/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Goyal Construction Company Shop No.213-214, Ii Floor, Crystal Arcade, Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaffg9964N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 4Section 80I

aforesaid issue is as to whether or not the assessment framed by the A.O exercising jurisdiction over the case of the assesee i.e. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur vide order passed u/s.143(3), dated 12.03.2014 on the basis of a notice issued by him u/s 143(2), dated ... Goyal Construction Company Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur notice u/s 143(2) issued within the stipulated time period by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) can be sustained in the eyes of law.? 19. Answer to the aforesaid issues can safely be gathered on a bare perusal

Smt Anupama Asswa, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. Anupama Asawa 7 According to him, it is apparent from the record that ... goodwill account was thoroughly examined by the Income-tax Officer before making the assessment and after examining when he accepted the contention of the assessee its discussion did not find place in the assessment order, as no additions were going to be made or no modifications in the return filed