“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

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 68

assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts ne disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

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

Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 133ASection 68

supra) would clarify this legal position. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court are extracted below:- “2. Now, the Income-tax Officer in not accepting the book results of the assessee proceeded mainly on the ground that in respect of the cash sales entered ... sold. The assessee had supplied an explanation for his inability to do so, but the said explanation was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. There was no other reason for the Income-tax Officer to discard the book results. He, no doubt, pointed out that it appeared that other

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 699/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee trust. We would also like to place our reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Income-Tax Officer v/s Lakhamani Mewaldas 5 Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) which held that to reopening an assessment after a lapse ... reason to suspect” that income has escape assessment. The relevant extract of the said decision cited as under: The power of the Income-Tax officer to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are “reasons to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. The reopening

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur vs. Wilfred D'Souza, Puttur

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

ITA 1418/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Wilfred D’Souza, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Karnataka Cashew Ward - 1, Corporation & M/S. Great India Vs. Puttur. Finance Corporation, Kemmai, Puttur, D. K. – 574203. Pan : Abfpd 3142 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I. T. Act." Yours faithfully (PARIMELAZHAGAN P.J.) Income-tax Officer. Ward-1, Puttur." Page 4 of 5 21. Except stating that assessee had received Rs.30 Lakhs in the financial year 2007-08 from Rohan Monteiro

Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer, Sanpada vs. Pr. CIT - (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1361/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of 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 ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not 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.” The principle which has been laid down

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

conditions must exist before an ITO can proceed to exercise jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Act. Under section 147(b), the Income-tax Officer also has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment where he has reason to believe, on the basis of information in his possession, that ... made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed. In either case, whether the Income-tax Officer invokes his jurisdiction under clause (a) or clause (b) or both, the proceedings for bringing to tax an 'escaped assessment' can only commence

L & T Infra Debt Fund Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 10(47)Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of 4 L&T Infra Debt Fund Limited 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 ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not 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.” The principle which has been laid down

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 169/CHNY/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of the assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 168/CHNY/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/CHNY/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/CHNY/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Waterfield Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2102/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Appellant 5th Floor, Rupam Building, 239, P D Mello Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 013 [PAN: AAACF8177A] Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income-Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai ………………….…… Respondent ITA No.: 2083/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2011-12 Narang Connect Pvt. Ltd. ……………...………… Appellant

Forbes Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, NFAC, Circle 6 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2051/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Delicacies & More, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Serenity Traders Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A.O) 14(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2230/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atin S. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 250

market for these snake skins was in the United Kingdom and United States all these years, and if that market fell off, the Income-tax Officer cannot ask the assessee why he could not have sold the skins in other foreign countries. That is virtually the stand taken

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order ... consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of 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

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

1968/69 and Rs. 50, 937/- during the succeeding year in constructing a new building on the said land. The assesee claimed before the Income-tax Officer the expenditure of the said sums of Rs. 1, 62,835/- and Rs. 50, 937/- in the relevant assessment years as capital loss

Smt/ Pawan M Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7852/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair,Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 54Section 54F

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the learned Income-tax Officer - 23(2)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessing Officer") in determining the Total Income of the appellant at Rs. 18,42.982/- while