“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

Indocare Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 12(1), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4750/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indocare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, D-5, Gali No. 5, Hosue No. 348, Ward-12(1), Delhi. Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-62. PAN: AACCI 7568 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee

ITO, Ward 28(1), New Delhi vs. Sudha Pawa Lh Late Swati Pawa, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153D

issue of the form and structure of the application. " 8.2 Further we find that coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Bishambhar DayalAgrawal [2024] 161 taxmann.com 1063 (Raipur - Trib.), Asstt. CIT Central Circle-2(1) v. M/s GM Modular

Satish Kumar Pawa, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2075/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153D

Satish Kumar Pawa, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2074/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153D

ITO, Ward-28(1), New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar Pawa, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3060/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153D

ITO, Ward-28(1), New Delhi vs. Sudha Pawa (L/H of Late Swati Pawa), New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3059/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153D

ITO, Ward-28(1), New Delhi vs. Sudha Pawa (L/H of Late Ms Swati Pawa), New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3058/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153D

M/S Himalayan Vacations, P. Ltd., Nanital vs. ACIT, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 9

case reply is not submitted, the order shall be passed without the benefit of your explanation. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 8. From the perusal of the above show cause notice and further from the perusal of assessment order, it is seen

Maya Shikshan Pashishan Sansthan, Hathras vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Hathras

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250

AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maya Shikshan Pashishan Vs. Income-tax Officer, Sansthan, C/o Prakash Textiles, Ward 4(3)(4), Hathras. Mendu Road, Hathras (UP). PAN :AASFM3134F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Deepak Singh, Advocate Department

Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Bhind vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1) Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Vs. Income-tax Officer, In front of Shiv Utsav Vatika, Ward 2(1), Gwalior. Ater Road, Ward-1, Bhind (MP) PAN :AZBPS6878C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajendra

Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Hathras vs. Assessment Unit, Hathras

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144Section 250

AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Near Patwari Mandir, Navipur Ward 4(3)(4), Hathras. Road, Hathras (UP). PAN :BHMPA6438C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Deepak Maheshwari, Advocate Department

Maya Rathore, Jaipur vs. Assessing Authority, Jaipur

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

ITA 823/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 250Section 44A

ITATJAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR dated 19.02.2024 in ITA. No. 22/JPR/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of Rajesh Agarwal, Jaipur Vs. Income-tax Officer,Ward-4(1),Jaipur. 48-62 12. Similar covered Decision byHon'ble ITAT Division Bench, Amritsar dated 10.03.2025 in ITA no. 443/Asr/2024

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

assessee by investors as claimed by the assessee. We would like to look at the concept of burden of proof. Though the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence as known to the civil and criminal law, any issue has to be determined ... proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. In other words, if Income-tax Officer finds that the assessee is in possession of valuable items like bullion, jewelry, etc., he must draw a rebuttable presumption that the assessee

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Global University Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward-1 Pan:Aaicg0020F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Suvibha Nolka राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/07/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. There Is A Delay Of 506 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Foundation. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Served With The Impugned Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Therefore, Due To The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, The Assessee

For Appellant: CA Suvibha NolkaFor Respondent: : Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 143(1)

furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause." 19. The High Court of Gujarat further in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ... Global University Foundation Hyderabad Assessing Officer latest when the question of framing of assessment is taken up by the Income-tax Officer and when he applies his mind to the claim of the assessee and if by that time, the assessee has put his house in order and has furnished

Nashit Suhail Anshari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)

BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Nashit Suhail Ansari National Faceless Assessment Centre / C 1/3, Kailashchandra CHS Ltd Vs Income-tax Officer, Wad 30(1)(1) Mahindra Nagar Dayabhai Patel Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (E), Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 097 PAN : BLNPA7046M Appellant

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, for example when the Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view which the Commissioner does not agree it cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is sustainable in law. 5.3 Identical view has been taken

Arham Star, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Arham Star Income-Tax Officer, Cw-2090, Bharat Diamond Ward - 19(2)(2), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (Pan: Aaafs5695M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075308198(1), Dated 30/03/2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, 19(1)(1), Mumbai, U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 22.12.2017 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Purchases Made By The Appellant Were Genuine & Supported By Documentary Material Including The Corroboration Of Sales Made From Such Purchases & There Was Not Material To Show That The Purchases Were Not Genuine & Hence, The Same Could Not Have Been Disallowed. 2. The Nfac Erred In Upholding The Addition On The Basis Of Generalized Statements In The Assessment Order Without The Assessing Officer Having Conducted Any Enquiry In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arham Star Income-tax Officer, CW-2090, Bharat Diamond Ward - 19(2)(2), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAAFS5695M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Rahul ... order of CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075308198(1), dated 30/03/2025 passed against the assessment order by Income-tax Officer, 19(1)(1), Mumbai, u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 22.12.2017 for Assessment Year

Allied Concepts India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2407/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2407/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Allied Concepts India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, C/O Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Vs. Ward 2(1), F-26,/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaica9865C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 68

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 9 later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala

Aqila Technologies and Integration Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-43(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6057/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6057/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 बनाम Aquila Technologies & Dcit, Integration Solutions Pvt. Vs. Circle-43(1), Ltd., Delhi. E-18, 3Rd Floor, Ndse, S.O., Andrews Ganj, Shahput Jat, South East Delhi. Pan No.Aarca8841K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 80I

support of the above contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: S.No. Particulars Page No. 1. Income-tax Officer (E) vs. Camellia Educare Trust 1-10 [2023] 152 taxmann.com 304 (Kolkata – Trib.) 2. Samsung C And T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT