← 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

Dsv Air & Sea Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cirle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3653/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 253Section 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

impugned notice was issued under clause (a). A reading of clause (a) of section 147 shows that, for issuing a notice, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... this court to consider whether that material is sufficient or not. But if there is no material whatsoever, the Income-tax Officer would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We have read the counter-affidavit and examined the connected file. The sole ground

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

impugned notice was issued under clause (a). A reading of clause (a) of section 147 shows that, for issuing a notice, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... this court to consider whether that material is sufficient or not. But if there is no material whatsoever, the Income-tax Officer would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We have read the counter-affidavit and examined the connected file. The sole ground

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

impugned notice was issued under clause (a). A reading of clause (a) of section 147 shows that, for issuing a notice, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... this court to consider whether that material is sufficient or not. But if there is no material whatsoever, the Income-tax Officer would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We have read the counter-affidavit and examined the connected file. The sole ground

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

impugned notice was issued under clause (a). A reading of clause (a) of section 147 shows that, for issuing a notice, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... this court to consider whether that material is sufficient or not. But if there is no material whatsoever, the Income-tax Officer would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We have read the counter-affidavit and examined the connected file. The sole ground

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

impugned notice was issued under clause (a). A reading of clause (a) of section 147 shows that, for issuing a notice, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... this court to consider whether that material is sufficient or not. But if there is no material whatsoever, the Income-tax Officer would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We have read the counter-affidavit and examined the connected file. The sole ground

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

impugned notice was issued under clause (a). A reading of clause (a) of section 147 shows that, for issuing a notice, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ... this court to consider whether that material is sufficient or not. But if there is no material whatsoever, the Income-tax Officer would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We have read the counter-affidavit and examined the connected file. The sole ground

Income Tax Officer Ward-48(1), Delhi vs. Ravinder Nath Goel, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3437/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Singal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148

BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3437/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2012-13] The Income-tax Officer Vs. Ravinder Nath Goel Ward – 48(1) 1271, Gali Guliyan Delhi Vakilpura, Delhi PAN: AAHPG 7690 M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Navneet Singal

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act. Provided that [an] [Substituted by Act 41 of 1975, Section 34, for" an Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.10.1975).][Assessing Officer] [Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.4.l988).][or an] [Substituted

M/S. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Manmohan Dasassessment Year: 2017-18 Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd……................……….……Appellant A-4, R G Baruah Road, Ambikagiri Nagar, Guwahati, Assam-781024. [Pan: Aacca4720A] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Guwahati.………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Amalan Bhadra, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Jha, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 27.02.2020 For The Ay 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Raised Legal Issue Challenged The Assessment Framed Based On Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Of The Act Which Is Not In Accordance With Instruction No. F. No. 225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23- 06-2017, Issued By The Cbdt.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

accruing on doubtful debts is credited to a suspense account, It need not be included in the assessee's taxable income, provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery is practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala High

Shree N H Enterprises, Rajkot vs. PCIT-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 227/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree N. H. Enterprises बनाम/ Pcit-1, D-101, Golden Portico Apartment, Dr. Income Tax Office, Vs. Madhapar Circle, Morbi Road, Rajkot- Rajkot-360007 360007 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Adlfs7019K "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 20/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. 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 to him, the order

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suomotu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions ... 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

Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

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

ITA 774/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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. (3) If the money has been brought into

Waterworld Tourism Company Private Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

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

ITA 726/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

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. (3) If the money has been brought into

1.Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kolkata vs. Anushreya Investment Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 68

this court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the Income-tax Officer was to be agreed upon, the least which is expected is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf setting out brief reasons

Narayanan Varalakshmi, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 23.10.2025
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

noted (supra) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (Single Bench) order in the case of Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, held in favour of Revenue, was reversed by the Hon’ble Division Bench by order dated 24.06.2025 by holding as under: This appeal impugns an order

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The Jackson Coop Credit Society of the Employees of Western Railway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2976/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 56Section 62Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

expression' profits and gains of business’ as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars, Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC). Such interest income could not be said to be attributable to the activities or the society, viz..carrying

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Planet Infra Promoters P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 8988/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.8988/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Planet Infra Promoters P. Ltd. Central Circle-1, Vs. 34C, Sector-8, Rohini, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aagcp8614E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

effective 01.06.2015) was prospective and not 10 applicable here. Ld. Counsel submits that in 2023. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Income-tax Officer v. Vikram Sujit kumar Bhatia held that the amendment brought to section 153C vide Finance Act,2015 shall also be applicable to searches conducted

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक