“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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1.1. In the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)[05-08-1971], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - Section 17(1) of 1922 Act can apply to a 'person'. The expression

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2780/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. 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 ... been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decisions is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized where the Income-tax Officer while making

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere presence. The powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect" The reopening

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

held as that:- " It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted ... either party. The appellants took it that the affidavits of these parties were enough and neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present at the hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considered it necessary to call for them in order to cross

Income-Tax Officer, WD.4(2)(1), Ahemdabad vs. Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Thakor Legal Heir Narendakumar Khodaji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 941/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 941/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 292B

completed against a deceased person are a nullity and without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Guj)] categorically held that a notice issued under section 148 of the Act in the name of a deceased person ... fundamental defect because that provision applies only to a living assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also upheld this legal principle. In Income-tax Officer v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai [2021] 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision holding that

Preity G Zinta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4199/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Preity G Zinta Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, 403 Parishram, Ward 4(3)(1), Smt. Nergish Dutt Road, Mumbai Bandra West Vs. Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaapz2650B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita Nara, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi and Ms. Vinita Nara, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

adding a sum of Rs. 10,84,27,700/- u/s. 68 of the Act being credits in the bank account. 3. The Ld. Income-tax Officer, International Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai, had no jurisdiction to passed the impugned order 4. The directions of Ld. DRP vide order dated

Chander Sekhar Pahariya, Bhander vs. Assessing Officer, Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chander Sekhar Pahariya, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Bhander, Datia, Gwalior (MP) Ward-1(3), Gwalior. PAN : AKBPP8580H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Satish Agarwal, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore vs. Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

ITA 482/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Ramanamma Sakamuri 4.5 In the case of [2024] 167 taxmann.com 120 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'H (SMC)' Arihant Engineers v. Income-tax Officer* PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT APPEAL NO. 3660 (MUM.) OF 2024 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018- 19] OCTOBER

Mrs. Sanjana Anil Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised

ITA 4194/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Mrs. Sanjana Anil Agarwal Ito, 18(3)(2), Mumbai 27/31, Botawala Building, 3Rd Floor, Vs Earnest House, Nariman Point, Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Maharashtra – 400021. Maharashtra - 400002. [Pan: Abgpa3779D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

Income-tax(Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer, Ward – 18(3)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition of Rs. 4,53,76,116/- under section

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. R P Milkmade Products Private Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 3414/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3414/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Income-tax Officer Vs. R.P. Milkmade Products Pvt Ltd New Delhi 3/16, West Patel Nagar New Delhi PAN – AAACR 7284 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity ... clear that the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto under it, is that 10 the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely

Santosh Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 294/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

without prejudice to each other. 2. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the order passed by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Saharsa (here-in- after known as "the A.O.") and confirmation of the same by the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

Kerala Beedi and Cigar Workers Welfare Fund Board, Kannur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kannur

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

ITA 668/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V M Veeramani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Court took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely audit report at a later stage either beore the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause”. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of the coordinate bench of the ITAT ... Chennai Bench 'B' in Rani Adaikalaraj Educational and Charitable Trust v. Income-tax Officer reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 466 (Chennai - Trib.)held where assessee-trust, initially mentioned Rs. 71.77 lakhs instead of Nil under section 11(1)(2) and later filed a revised audit report and claimed repayment

Kerala Beedi and Cigar Workers Welfare Fund Board, Kannur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 659/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V M Veeramani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Texo the Builders, Udupi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1200/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

fortified by the said decisions." 2.14. We rely on decision of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in case of A. Daga Royal Arts v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur [2018] 94 taxmann.com 401 (Jaipur - Trib.). The relevant portion of judgement is reproduced below: 43. In the entirety of facts ... facts of each particular case in exercising his discretion either in favour or against the assessee'. It was also held that the Income-tax Officer should take a practical approach to the problem and strike a balance between the direction of law and hardship to the assessee." 36. The circular

Texo the Builders, Udupi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 1199/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made (a) by the Income-tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand rupees; (b) by the Assistant Commissioner, where the penalty exceeds twenty thousand rupees, except with the prior approval

Scholars Education Trust of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 153(5)Section 2(41)

lead to cancellation of registration u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act as per CBDT Circular No. 557 dtd. 19.03.1990 and settled law in Income-tax Officer (Exemptions) v. Theosophical Society [2024] 163 taxmann.com 770 (Chennai - Trib.). 9. For that the impugned order is passed doubting re-imbursement of only

Monika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251

because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 14.12.2018 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur. 2 Monika Jain vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That