“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

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

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

Late Shri Chhatrasinh J.Vaghela Thru L/H Kamlaben C.Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 828/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallate Shri Chhatrasingh J. Vs. Vaghela, Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H Kamlaben C. Ward-1, Vaghela, At & Post : Sargasan, Gandhinagar Sargasan, Gandhinagar-382421 [Pan : Atnpv 4710 C]

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54B

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Late Shri Chhatrasingh J. Vs. Vaghela, Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H Kamlaben C. Ward-1, Vaghela, At & Post : Sargasan, Gandhinagar Sargasan, Gandhinagar-382421 [PAN : ATNPV 4710 C] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 764/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

accordance with law. ”Unquote. ITA No.764/PUN/2025 [A] 15.2 ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Trilok Singh Bhandari Charitable Trust v. Income-tax Officer 213 ITD 63 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-05-2025] held as under : Quote,“12. Further ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujrat High

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

trust under sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report. Therefore one has to examine whether the delay in furnishing the audit report ... this case claimed exemption as charitable institution for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The exemption was refused by the Income-tax Officer on the grounds that (a) it was not duly registered with the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai CTS No 345A 1 to 3, Vs. 345A ... Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), dated 28.03.2025, passed against the assessment order by Income-tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds

Dipti Jagdish Satwani, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3669/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri V. BalajiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

Brinda RamaKrishna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Bangalore (ITA No.454/Bang/2021)  Mr. Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi vs. CIT(A), NFAC [ITA No.680/Bang/2022]  Income-tax officer, Ward 1(1), Asansol v. Sandip Choubey (I.T.A.No.742/Kol/2022)  Neetu Agarwal vs ITO, Kolkata (ITA No.1898/Kol/2024) Ground No.2: On the facts and circumstances ... Decision of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in case of Mylan Laboratories Limited v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Departmetn, Delhi & Another [TS-46-HC-2022 (TEL)]  Order of the Hon’ble ITAT in case of Northern Coalfields Limited

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

M/S Naresh Bros., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4155/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Naresh Bros. Income-tax Officer- 17(2)(4), 407, 4th floor, Dhiraj Mumbai Heritage, Near Bus Depot, Vs. SV Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400054 [PAN: AACFN7734Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

Balbir Gurnani, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 3124/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: 14/08/2025

Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Balbir Gurnani, Income-tax Officer Ward 2(5), Flat No. 106, B Wing, Mohan Wayle Nagar, Kadhakpada, Vs. Ritteka, Santosh Nagar, Near Kalyan-421301. Maya Ice Factory, Kalyan Thane

Nutrela Marketing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 3910/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50Section 50C

BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3910/Mum/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Nutrela Marketing Pvt Vs. Income-Tax Officer Ltd 7(1)(1), Mumbai Office No. 15, Giriraj Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Iron Market, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Sant Tukaram Road, 400020 Masjid Bunder, Mumbai

Chirag Kirpal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

whereby concept of Faceless Assessment has been introduced. A Division Bench of Telangana High Court in 'Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officer [2023] 156 taxmann.com 178/295 Taxman 652 ', a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in 'Hexaware Technology Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/464

Naveen Kumar Jha, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4817/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Case file perused. 2. Coming to the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned assessment dated 14.12.2019 framed by the learned Income-tax Officer, Ward- 35(8), Delhi itself, it emerges during the course of hearing that the relevant section 143(2) notice had been issued ... Income-tax Officer, Ward 38(3), Delhi on 28.09.2018. There is no other notice which could be stated to be emanating from 2 Naveen Kumar Jha v. ITO the case records. There is further no clarity as to whether the assessee’s assessment jurisdiction had been transferred from the above

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C R Building Ip Estate vs. Coforge Limited, Gur Ravi Das Marg Kalkaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 4659/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80M

Assessing Officer in exercise of his power under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. No power was given to the Income-tax Officer to disallow a claim for the reason that there was no proof in support of the claim made by the assessee. Only where it is evident ... then for the lack of proof, no dis-allowance or an adjustment could be made. The only option which was open to the Income-tax Officer, in such a case, was to require the assessee to furnish proof in which case he would have to issue notice under section

Coforge Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 4333/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80M

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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 set-ting out brief ... case to issue notice under section 148. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They