“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

Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Mauranipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

ITA 255/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2020-21 Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income-tax Officer, C/o Surendra Kumar Agarwal & Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi. Bros., B-24, Galla Mandi, Mauranipur (UP). PAN :AFQPA2033N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sanjeev

ACIT, Circle, Gandhidham vs. Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Anjar

In the result, appeal find by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.212/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Acit, Circle, Kutch District Co-Operative बनाम Gandhidham Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. C.O. Apmc Premises, Versamedi Naka, Near Railway Crossing Anjar, Gujarat-37010 Pan : Aaaak9845N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

aforesaid definition it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not accordance with law. If and 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 substation of the judgement 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

Sk. Rezzak, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Suri

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 586/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 69A

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 noted, - this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicion, conjectures and surmises

Yogesh Transport Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1326/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 69C

record. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of this Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s.Bhukta Transport v. Income-tax Officer (supra) when 3% Net profit was held to be accepted further relying on the decision of this Bench of ITAT in the case

DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rajarampuri Motipuri Gosavi, Thane

In the result, all the grounds of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Rajarampuri Motipuri Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Gosavi 6(1) 1002 Steppes Vasant Lawns, Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Pokharan Road No. 2, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Eastern Express Highway, Kurla Complex, Bandra Subhash Nagar, Thane – 400 (East), Mumbai – 400 051, 601, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpg2425M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

basis of documents seized and statements recorded from the third party, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court observed as follows: - "The Income-tax Officer came across a sort of a ledger maintained by the firm known as Vasu Films of Madras containing certain entries, which had been seized ... returned in each of the three assessment years respectively. For drawing the inference that she must have received income without passing receipts the Income-tax Officer relied upon the two entries which appeared on one page of that ledger of Vasu Films, which read as follows:………………….. In the statements recorded

Jai Mata Di Om, Thane vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax, Thane-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3342/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof he may set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power ... terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Page | 8 ITA No. 3342/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Jai Mata Di OM Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do.......".These observations are squarely applicable to the interpretation

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer 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

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande, Solapur, Maharashtra

In the result, the ground of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Income Tax, Central Circle- 6(1) बनाम Deshpande Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 528, Deshpande Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Near Bank Sangola, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Solapur – 413 307, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpd0198H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

third party, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed as follows: - P a g e | 16 A.Y. 2021-22 Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande “The Income-tax Officer came across a sort of a ledger maintained by the firm known as Vasu Films of Madras containing certain entries, which had been seized ... returned in each of the three assessment years respectively. For drawing the inference that she must have received income without passing receipts the Income-tax Officer relied upon the two entries which appeared on one page of that ledger of Vasu Films, which read as follows:………………….. In the statements recorded

Security Printing and Mintingcorporation of India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1665/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Meghan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234Section 40ASection 43B

same u/s 143(1) of the Act. This issue is also decided against the assessee in the case of Savleen Kaur vs. Income-tax officer [2023] 147 taxmann.com 402 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2023] 199 ITD 437 (Delhi - Trib.) [09-01-2023] where the coordinate bench of Delhi ITAT has held that ... context of section 143(3) of the Act and not section 143(1) of the Act. The Delhi Tribunal in Savleen Kaur vs. Income-tax officer, (supra) however, distinguished the above judgment on a finding that Mumbai Tribunal has simply relied on another coordinate bench decision which was decided

ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi vs. Saloni Narang, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Saloni Narang, Tax, Central Circle-15, 5, Dr. G.G. Narang Marg, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Vs Cavalary Lane, Centre, Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aafpn2692C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

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

K274 Uthukuli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2133/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2133/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. K274 Uthukuli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 1(2), Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur 1. Uttukuli Post, Uttukuli, Tirupur – 638 751 Pan: Aabak 4347E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court rendered in Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka, wherein the issue came up for consideration as to whether the interest income received by a Co-operative Bank from its members

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4643/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Annai Kanthammal Ramachandran Educational and Charitable Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence, a court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

Mr.Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Sivagangai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Karaikudi

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

ITA 1955/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 44ASection 69Section 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

Abdulsami Abdulhamid Zariwala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 95/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh B Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 271FSection 77

JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 95/SRT/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Abdulsami Abdulhamid Zariwala Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2 5/1702, Hathupura, Near Turava (3) (3), Surat School, Haripura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIPZ6016D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Yogesh

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel बनाम/ Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Choryasi, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 005 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.9/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.1020/Srt/2024/ (Ay 2018-19) Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Vs. Choryasi, Surat-395 005 Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (""यथ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48

BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1020/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid hearing) Income-tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel बनाम/ Surat, Room No. 614, 6th Floor, 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Choryasi, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate ... ./PAN/GIR No: CTOPP 7620 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /CO No.9/SRT/2025 (A/o ITA No.1020/SRT/2024/ (AY 2018-19) Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel Income-tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Surat, Room No. 614, 6th Floor, Vs. Choryasi, Surat-395 005 Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate