“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

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R

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

assessee by observing as under:– “13. With the ground no.(c), we notice that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ahmedabad v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah [2011] 12 taxmann.com 37 (Ahmedabad) has already decided the similar issue raised by the revenue

Mr Ashok Madhav Rao, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1288/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Mr. Ashok Madhav Rao Centralized Processing Flat No. 103, Dheeraj Centre, Dashan 2, Kokan Nagar, Vs. Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- Income Tax Department, 400 060 Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 500 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afirp8784B Assessee By : Ketan Ved Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan SR AR

Section 143(1)Section 90

income-tax return in Netherlands for the Calendar year 2017. 1.3 The learned CIT (A) powers are co-terminus with that of the income-tax officer and hence CIT (A) has all the powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. Accordingly, the Hon’ble CIT (A) ought

Kantharajapura Ramaiah Ananthababu, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 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

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee ?" In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

assessee, the satisfaction along with the 3 ITA No.997/Bang/2022. Sri.Shroff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha. material on which the satisfaction was based, was sent to the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction over the assessee, which was received by the jurisdictional A.O. on 03.02.2020. The jurisdictional A.O. after recording satisfaction that the information

Sgn Distributors India, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesgn Distributors Vs. Ito – 23(3)(3) 105, Veena Beena Mumbai-400021. Shopping Centre, Opp Bandra Rly Stn, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpr3175L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Centre [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)" for sake of brevity] has erred in SGN Distributors, Mumbai. confirming the action of Income-tax Officer 23(3)(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the AO" for sake of brevity). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 740/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

For Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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 insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue'. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order ... 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

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

Bombay)] NOS 231 AND 248 OF 2018 dated 31 July 2018] John Deere India (P) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer. Ward 11(2), Pune [IT APPEAL NO 828 (PUNE) OF 2014] 23 ITA No. 1259/Mum/2021-WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Safilo India (P) Ltd. V Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

Sandoz P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2005-06

ITA 3871/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

under: “Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested M/s. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3870/Mum./2013; ITA no.3871/Mum./2013; ITA no.3733/Mum./2013; ITA no.3740/Mum./2013 with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders

Sandoz P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2005-06

ITA 3870/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sandoz P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2005-06

ITA 3740/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sandoz P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2005-06

ITA 3733/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Mamta Lalit Jain, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Section 131Section 147

notice under section 148 in this case for the A.Y. 2012- 13 may be accorded, if approved. Place : Kalyan (RAKESH KUMAR) Date 12.03.2019 Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kalyan. 5. The Ld.AR also placed on record the copy of SEBI order dated 04/01/2016 passed under section

M/S. Karnataka Hitech Agro Enterprises, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 717/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ramaraju N., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 263Section 68

Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of Page 15 of 16 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 and the Income-tax ... 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." 12. The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed

A.Manoharan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 17(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3512/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Veeraraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3512/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri A. Manoharan, The Income-tax Officer, No.43/15, New Thandavarayan Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-17(2), Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 021. PAN : AAPPM 5503K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M M GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

The Acropolis Co.Op.Hsg.Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 928/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acropolis Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Dy. Cit, Cpc B-31, Acropolis Little Gibs Road, Malbar Bengaluru, Karnataka Vs. Hill, Mumbai-400 006

For Appellant: Shri Vishal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 12(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 9(1)

Society Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 7. The ld. AR distinguished the facts of the case in Totagars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs Income-tax Officer [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC), which was relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) controverted

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If one of the conditions is absent i.e., if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot ... thus 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

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263