← All Phrases

“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

Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

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

Heena Suresh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6617/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single ... could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,---this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the head office and in branches the Income-tax Officer indulged

Suresh M Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single ... could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,---this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the head office and in branches the Income-tax Officer indulged

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

Officer, as the case may be, shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise ... 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

Navunda Abdulla Badruddin, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 508/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under – “The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted ... 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

Sri M G Anand Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 762/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 761/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Sri M G Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 760/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 759/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 758/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Sri. M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 756/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 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.M.Pandey, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2483/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

view that the position was well- settled that the provisions of the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer and that it was open to the Income-tax Officer to rely upon the material in the form of judgment of the criminal court ... case of Anraj Narain Dass v. Commissioner of Income- tax, where reliance on the judgment of the criminal court by the Income-tax Officer was considered to be perfectly legal and further relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Proma Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 is dismissed

ITA 1788/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA 1788/Mum/2020 (Assessment year 2010-11) Proma Industries Limited vs Income-tax Officer-8(2)(4) 2nd 1803, Lodha Supremus, Saki Vihar Room No.213, Floor, Road, Opp. MTNL Exchange, Powai, Aaayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 072 Mumbai

R V Deshpande HUF, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 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

Raj Rayon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.830/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Raj Rayon Industries Ltd बिधम/ Pcit-3 Survey No. 177/1/3 & 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 177/1/4, Village Surangi, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Silvassa-396230 (Ut Of Road, Mumbai-400020. Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu)-396230. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7820E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

made in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, reported in 2002 (125) Taxman 963 SC. Accordingly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

133C of the Act for verification by prescribed authority. 2.2 On filing the Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 on 02.09.2015, initially, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore vide letter dated 11-2-2016 had called for certain information under provisions of section 133C ... 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. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

133C of the Act for verification by prescribed authority. 2.2 On filing the Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 on 02.09.2015, initially, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore vide letter dated 11-2-2016 had called for certain information under provisions of section 133C ... 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

Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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.” 6.11 We have carefully gone through the aforesaid