“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

Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 843/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 37Section 40A(2)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

Section 40(a)(fi) of IT Act, 1961 - Clarification regarding.- "Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the Income-tax Officer has disallowed the 'cess' paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of section ... years 1962-63 and onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the Income-tax Officers so that further litigation on this account may be avoided. Board's F. No. 9l I 58166-IT( I 9), dated

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act, 1961 - Clarification regarding.- "Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the Income-tax Officer has disallowed the 'cess' paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of section ... Section 40(a)(ii) of the new Act.’ 2. The view of the Income-tax Officer is not correct. Clause 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Bill, 1961 as introduced in the Parliament stood as under:- "(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied

Sri Amit Kumar Loya, Gulbarga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Belagavi

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

ITA 38/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Sections 271 and 271(1)(c) and the Explanation appended thereto manifestly makes it clear that every addition of income by the Income-tax Officer will not automatically attract levy of penalty. It is clear from Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act that while computing ... agriculturists. When the assessee was asked to substantiate this claim, the assessee made attempts to secure those creditors to examine before the Income-tax Officer. Despite the Sri Amit Kumar Loya, Gulbarga Page 6 of 7 best efforts of the assessee, he could not secure the creditors as witnesses

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-19, Mumbai

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

ITA 726/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68

erroneous order. He further stated that the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has held that the direction of the learned PCIT to the Income-tax Officer to re-examine the matter without having any material and for the reason that the order of the learned assessing officer did not discuss

K R Mahesha, Maddur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 365/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

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

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 147, Ld.CIT(A) held that Hon'ble Supreme Court while delivering judgment in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd Vs. Income-Tax Officer And Others [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) laid down a ratio that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing ... apex court has held as under (page 477): "From a combined review of the judgments of this court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt R Meena, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 722/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1St Main Road, The Income-Tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Agrpm0228K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 40 Lakhs Made On The Basis Of Statement Recorded Of Husband Of Assessee Who Offered An Additional Income On Account Of Inflated Expenses Found During The Course Of Survey Proceedings. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Made On Account Of Payment Reduced In Cash Book At Rs.3,41,918/-, Cash Expenses Of Rs. 3 Lakhs Without Calling For Report From The Ao & Accepting The Additional Evidence & Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In Contravention Of The Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69B

CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1st Main Road, The Income-tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: AGRPM0228K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

subject matter of the assessment or the sources of income which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of taxability of the assessee, and that it is not open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to travel outside the record ... return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income-tax officer with a view to find out new sources of income and the power of enhancement under s. 31(3) of the Act is restricted to the sources of income which have been the subject-matter

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(5), Bangalore vs. Ms. Kupparaju Changamaraju Radha, Bangalore

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

ITA 387/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagale, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT (DR)

Section 54Section 54F

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 The Income-tax Officer, Vs. Ms. Kupparaju Changamaraju Radha, No.59, 36th Main, 4th Cross, Ward-2(2)(5), Bengaluru. BTM Dollar Colony, Madiwala, Bengaluru. PAN: ABQPR

Prahlad Singh Bisht, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4099/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prahlad Singh Bisht, vs. Income-tax Officer, 510-E, Konark Enclave, Ward 2(1), Ghaziabad. Sector-17, Ghaziabad. PAN : AAGPB2893J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Anil Gandhi

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

seeking modification of the order of ITA Nos. 6649 & 6650/Del/2017 15 CO Nos. 68 & 70/Del/2020 PC Jewellers Ltd. 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

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

Aleo Manali Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO (TDS), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4673/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 194CSection 194ISection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aleo Manali Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer(TDS), B-173, Sector-41, Noida. Noida. PAN : AAECA3225E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aasish Sachdeva, CA Respondent by: Shri

Radhey Tradelink Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7000/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 5(1)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Radhey Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, 401, White House, 382, Ward 20(4), New Delhi Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi. PAN : AADCR5246B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent

M/S. Prime Quality Consultants (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Prime Quality Consultants Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, 1313,Kundewalan, Ajmeri Gate Ward 14(4), New Delhi. Indl. Area, New Delhi PAN : AAACP1685P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, C.A. Respondent

M/S. Lucina Land Development Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, grounds no

ITA 962/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Lucina Land Vs. Acit, Development Ltd., Circle-15(2), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan :Aabcl2130N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

department. In this very case two remedies were open to the Department neither of which was resorted to. It was open to the Income-tax Officer to have proceeded against the assessee under the first part of section 34; or alternatively, the Commissioner could have exercised his powers of revision

Distt. Red Cross Society, Faridabad vs. ITO (E), Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 964/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 11Section 124(3)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

bank account, the assessment was reopened by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Faridabad requesting the assessee to file return of income for the year under consideration. The said notice and also notice under section

Distt Red Cross Society, Faridabad vs. ITO, Exemption, Haryana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 11Section 124(3)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Iecs Limited Employee Pf Covered Under Fps, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

ITA 2922/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 17(1)

assessee, then, for the lack of proof, no disallowance or an adjustment can be made. The only option which is open to the Income-tax Officer in such a case is that he can require the assessee 6 ITA No.2922/Del./2018 to furnish proof in which case he will presumably