“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

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

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

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

only if, on examina- tion 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 ... 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

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80H

profit of Rs. 11.02 crores, the assessee had declared the net profit of Rs. 1.90 crores in the return of income filed. The Income-tax Officer, who made this assessment, issued the notice to assessee proposing to impose the penalty under ... either concealed the particulars of his income for the assessment year 1996-97 or had furnished the inaccurate particulars of such income. The Income-tax Officer held that this was a fit case of levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) concealing particulars of income by the assessee

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

Section 144B of the Act. 5.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus held as under :- "2. The power to revise orders of the Income-tax Officer under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sought to be limited by the appellant-assessee by contending that the phrase "order ... passed by the Income-tax Officer" in section 263 excluded those orders passed by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B which was then included in the Act. 3. The High Court in its decision has followed its earlier decision

Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Chennai vs. Shri Arun Gupta, Chennai

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

ITA 844/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

For Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate &

Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54E

MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), v. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [PAN: AGRPA

M/S Alcon Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3376/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)

Tribunal to allow the production of additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the production of such vital documents. b)The Bangalore

Alcon Laboratories (India0 Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2889/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)

Income Tax Officer -31(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd Gratuity Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1555/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1555/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) The Income-Tax Officer -31(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited. Gratuity Fund, 501, Arena Space, Off. Jvlr, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaaaj-1600-Q .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U Matkarni ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri M.P.Lohia सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 28/12/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ms. Vranda U Matkarni Representing The Department Submitted That In The First Appellate Proceedings, The Cit(A) Allowed Assessee’S Claim Of 2 Deduction Of Rs.8.44 Crores. The Ld. Departmental Representative Submits That The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Said Claim Was Not Made By The Assessee In The Return Of Income Or In The Revised Return Of Income. The Ld. Departmental Representative Further Pointed That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Admitting Fresh Claim Of The Assessee Without Making Enquries & Restored The Same To The Assessing Officer With A Direction To Verify The Same.

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U MatkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Lohia

Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(1)Section 250

BENCH “ F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1555/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) The Income-tax Officer -31(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Room No.615, 6th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Johnson & Johnson Private

New Carrying Corporation, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1)I/C, Chennai

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

ITA 229/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 4o

SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 New Carrying Corporation The Income-tax Officer, No. 41, Armenian Street, v. Non-Corporation Ward 12(1), 2nd Floor, Parrys Corner, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, BSNL Chennai – 600 001. Bldg, Tower ... passing the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act), by holding that the Assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as AO) u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2017 as erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Tax Ward)2(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1511/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(4)Section 204Section 49

such appeal. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal raised by the appellant which states that the Income-tax Officer (International Tax) - Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") erred in passing the order under Section

Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD. 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2053/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 194A

which held that once an assessment is validly reopened, the previous under assessment is set aside and the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous year. The Court held that the object of section

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because ... 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 re-opening the assessment. At the same time we have to bear

The Ikkaraiboluvampatti Paccs 33, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 4(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Ikkaraiboluvampatti Paccs, V. The Income Tax Officer, 33, Rajaji Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaaai 3699 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.J.Saravanan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

simply, accrues to an assessee. As already discussed, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) has held that "the income which simply accrues to the assessee falls outside the ambit of section

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2351/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

I.T.A No.2349/Mum/2022 - A.Y. 2016-17 I.T.A No.2350/Mum/2022 - A.Y. 2017-18 I.T.A No.2351/Mum/2022 - A.Y. 2020-21 M/s Jal Ratan Deep Co-operative vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-13(2)(1) Housing Society Ltd, Plot No.13B Mumbai Bangur Nagar, Link Road DGIT (Vigilance)(West) Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 014 PAN : AACAJ3366M Assessee

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2349/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2348/MUM/2022[201-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

I.T.A No.2349/Mum/2022 - A.Y. 2016-17 I.T.A No.2350/Mum/2022 - A.Y. 2017-18 I.T.A No.2351/Mum/2022 - A.Y. 2020-21 M/s Jal Ratan Deep Co-operative Income-tax Officer, Ward-13(2)(1) vs Housing Society Ltd, Plot No.13B Mumbai Bangur Nagar, Link Road DGIT (Vigilance)(West) Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 014 PAN : AACAJ3366M Assessee

M/S. Ig Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

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

grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Addl. /Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-tax Officer. National IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2022 IG Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 21 Faceless Assessnlent Center. Delhi i.e. the learned Assessing Officer

Asst CIT Cir. 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dpn Reality Deals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1347/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vp आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1347/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Acit, Circle-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Dpn Reality Deals Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Unit No. 4, Building No. 400020. 2, Sector-1, Millenium Business Park Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6576C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Bhat Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.11.2019 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal & Deleting The Additions Of Rs.19,46,21,075/- Made U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)

Section 56(2)(viib)

setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that 10 A.Y. 2016-17 DPN Reality Deals 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