“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

Amrit Lal Khairwar, Champa, Chhattisgarh vs. Income-Tax Officer Janjgir-Champa, Champa

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

ITA 503/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.503/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amrit Lal Khairwar, Indira Nagar, Behind Govt, City Hospital, Janjgir, Khadipadi Para, Janjgir, Champa, 495668, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Dudpk4562H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR

Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 2 Amrit Lal Khairwar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ... along with an affidavit of the assessee. The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit are extracted as follows: 3 Amrit Lal Khairwar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa 3. Ld. Sr. DR has also not challenged the condonation petition and has fairly conceded to the contents therein. That on careful

Chenniappa Gounder Deivasigamani, Kangayam vs. Ward I(4) / Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 2380/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2380/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chenniappa Gounder The Income Tax Officer, Deivasigamani, Vs. Ward 1(4), 565/4-A, Tirupur Sivamathy Modern Rice Mill, Agasthilingampalayam Road, Tiruppur – 638 701. Pan: Aenpd 8814L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Harinandha Kumar, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Harinandha Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. That is not the position in the case before

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay

Section 132(4)Section 147

facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact

Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), Delhi vs. Rajesh Gupta, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4250/DEL/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaru Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), 52, Anand Vihar, Delhi Pitampura, North West, Delhi Pan: Aanpg5093Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sarthak Gupta, Ar Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

this office by 10.09.2018 alongwith documentary evidence. Your case is fixed for hearing on 10.09.2018. Your faithfully, Kavita Batra Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karnal” 6. A bare reading of contents of aforesaid letter would show that it does not deal with the objections filed by the assessee against reopening

Francis Liston, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Noncorporate Ward 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 673/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Francis ListonFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

brevity, the “the Act”), date of order 22/07/2025 for Assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp. Ward-2(1), Kochi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 19/08/2016

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 606/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr AR

Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

BENCH, KOCHI BEFORESHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.606/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Viswanathan Krishnakumar vs Income-tax Officer X/190,Krishnalaya Library K A P Complex, Railway Station Road, Aluva, Kochi-683 101 Road, Aluva, Kochi PAN : ALVPK9461H APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

Shivaani Shannaiah Niranjan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1066/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Rajan, CA

Section 2Section 35Section 69A

Section 35, for Explanation 3 (w.e.f. 1.4.1993).][Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).], satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1489/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

purview of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31/01/2011. According to the said Instruction, the pecuniary jurisdiction in such cases lies with the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In support of this contention ... 1/2011 dated 31/01/2011,we find that, in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction, the assessee's case would ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer and not the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. However, in search and seizure cases, the concept of pecuniary jurisdiction has no application, as search

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1488/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1487/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

DCIT, Cir-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Eveglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1486/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

purview of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31/01/2011. According to the said Instruction, the pecuniary jurisdiction in such cases lies with the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In support of this contention ... 1/2011 dated 31/01/2011,we find that, in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction, the assessee’s case would ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer and not the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. However, in search and seizure cases, the concept of pecuniary jurisdiction has no application, as search

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Tax Act, 1961, when based on information from the investigation wing, provided the AO exercises due diligence and does not act mechanically: 1. Income-tax Officer vs. Purushottam Das Bangur [1997] 90 Taxman ... Delhi)/[2011] 197 Taxman 177 (Delhi)/[2011] 333 1TR 146 (Delhi)/[2011] 239 CTR 378 (Delhi) [07.01.2011] 3. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. Income-tax Officer [1993] 69 Taxman 627 (SC)/[1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)/ [1993] 113 CTR 436 (SC) [13-07- 1993], 4. Ess Ess Kay Engineering

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

F.No.73A/2(69)-IT (A-II)], dated 20-2-1969. which extracted below :- "Migrant assessee - Money remitted to India through banks - Enquiries by Income-tax Officers regarding origin of money - Instructions regarding. It has been represented to the Board that persons of Indian origin residing abroad but intending to return ... absence of proper supporting evidence, the taxpayers' story that the money has been brought into India from outside may be disbelieved by the Income-tax Officer who may then proceed to hold that the money had in fact been earned in India. 6 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan (3) If the money

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

assessee as clarificatory in nature and considered the same to test the fairness and propriety of the estimate of income made by the Income-tax Officer. Though it was belated production of very ITA No.400/LKW/2025 Page 10 of 26 relevant material, no prejudice (in its legal sense) would have resulted ... liberal in applying the procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but a continuation of the original proceeding and what the Income-tax Officer could have done, the appellate authority also could do." (emof income made by the Income-tax Officer Though it was belated production of very relevant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 1612/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

jurisdictional High Court (Single Bench) order in the case of Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, held in favour of tax Officer, held in favour of Revenue, was reversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated Revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 1611/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Sothern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 1547/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 1546/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 1545/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, Bmtc Building, Koramangala vs. Gtr Aluminium Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Monish Sowkhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

method of valuation which has been opted by the assessee. Further jurisdictional ITAT Bangalore in the case of UKN Hospitality (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 7(1)(2), Bengaluru [2021] 131 taxmann.com 121 (Bangalore - Trib.) held “Adoption of DCF method for valuation of shares is recognized under section