“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

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1165/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

admeasuring 10.21 hectares Decided in favour of assessee. x) Furthermore, reliance is being place on the following case laws:- 1. KP VARGHESE VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, AND ANOTHER1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT. 29. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2 Chd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

Somnath Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Somnath Gupta Acit, C.C 2(1), C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, Vs. Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adwpg8240K Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

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

Ap Goyal Charitable Trust, East Delhi, Delhi India vs. ITO, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2038/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 249(4)

limitation period, this issue is also considered and decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v/s Income-tax Officer, reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi), wherein the hon’ble court has made following observation: 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

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

Chinnappan Peter Francis, Kumbakonam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1484/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Chinnappan Peter Ito, Francis, Vs. Ward I, No. 113, Kamraj Road, Kumbakonam. Bishops House, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Bwspp-2816-G] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 : 09.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.04.2025, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ito (Assessing Officer), Ward I, Thanjavur Dated 30.01.2024. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Mr.Y.Sridhar, Advocate For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022 & The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Tvs Credit Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit (W.P.No.22402 Of 2024 Dated 24.06.2025). The Ld.Dr, Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.Cit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 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

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

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 with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Raju Prakash, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 71/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2015-16] Raju Prakash Vs. The Income-tax Officer E-699, E-Block, Ward - 59(1), Delhi Shakurpur, Delhi PAN: BBHPP 2044 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Rajesh Mahajan

Sainik Co Operative House Building Society Limited, Jammu and Kashmir vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jammu

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

ITA 698/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

period - Whether, therefore, notice was beyond period of limitation -Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee] Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd, vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi)[30-01-20251 Section 149, read with section 148A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and section ... during the course of the assessment proceedings, because the action will relate back to the time when the first notice was issued. The Income-tax Officer is well within his jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage at which the illegality has occurred and to assess the appellants

Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

Sugar Dept.) vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay, (1970) 75 ITR 33, held sas under: “….. . In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for rejecting the book results shown by the assessee's accounts or for not accepting the cash transactions as genuine cannot be accepted ... name and address of the purchaser. In our opinion, therefore, the rejection of the results of the assessee's cash book by the Income-tax Officer was not at all justified and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, was right in deleting the addition made by the Income-tax Officer

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The Income-tax Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard ... letter in writing. All these are part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income-tax Officer on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

penalty under s. 272A(2)(c).” 5.3 Very recently Hon’ble ITAT Raipur Bench in the case of Bhavna Modi v. Income-tax Officer [2025] 170 taxmann.com 236 (Raipur - Trib.) held that:- “Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee failed to respond certain notices of the Assessing Officer, which were ... accordingly assessment was completed under section 143(3), therefore, respectfully, following the analogy drawn in the decision referred to Saleem Ahmed Khan v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 156 taxmann.com 36 (Jabalpur - Trib.) and Rambhai Kanjibhai Patel v. DCIT [IT Appeal No. 106 to 110 (SRT) of 2023, dated

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

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

Sabita Rudra, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 50(1)Kolkata, Kolkata

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

ITA 363/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Alok Ghosh & Arka Ghosh, ARsFor Respondent: Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 811

ITAT Chennai (v) S. Balaji Mech-Tech (P.) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer [2025] 170 taxmann.com 639 (Delhi -Trib.) (vi) Sunny Kapoor v. Income-tax Officer [2022] 142 taxmann.com 577 (Lucknow -Trib.) (vii) Meena Jewellers Extension (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 55 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 12 ITA No. 363/Kol/2024

M/S Implex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 293/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

similar case, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal of the ITAT, Kolkata 'C' Bench in the case of Kohinoor Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 571 (Kolkata - Trib.) have also held as under: ■ It was observed that the operational creditor of assessee has filed the petition

M/S Implex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 292/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

deeming provisions in the Act. There is, however, no express bar in law, nor one by necessary implication, restricting the power of the Income-tax Officer to exclude the expenditure laid out or expended under section 10(2) (xv) of the 1922 Act. We are, therefore, unable to accede

Hewlett Pakcard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

Virendra M Gaidhane, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ground no-1 is allowed

ITA 64/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): This appeal of the assessee is directed against the final assessment order of the passed by the Learned Income-tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai, (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax