“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

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 596/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 595/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia, 19 Rani Sati Colony, Y.N. Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 594/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 593/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), ii. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) AIR SC 228, iii. Biren Dhirajlal Shah v. Income-tax Officer reported in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 261 (Ahd.), iv. Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bom) wherein it was consistently held that

Devi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan, Indore vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan ITA No. 472/Ind/2025 - AY 2020-21 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

ACIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Trishul Realty Infra LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7649/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income-tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 220/DDN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

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

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Word Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 219/DDN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Word Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/DDN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

Br Associates, Uttarakahand vs. ACIT, Rishikesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 175/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

justify framing of the M/s. DurgaManikanta Traders, Vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1) assessment vide impugned order u/s 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. Apart from that, we find that as per the mandate of sub-section (1) of section ... initiated by the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai vide notice u/s.143(2), dated 24.09.2013, which thereafter were taken up and culminated by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2015, then, as per the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section

Mohd Nayeem, Jhansi vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee including additional ground are remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer

ITA 36/AGR/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi Pan : Acfpn3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) -2, Chennai Dated 05.12.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice, Brief Facts Of The Case Relating To The Issues Are, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee In Summary Assessment U/S 143(1) Of The Act Based On The Audit Report Disallowed The Amount Wherein The Auditor Has Declared In Form No. 3Cd That There Is Outstanding Payment Due Of Rs. 81,08,561/- To Gst, Based On The Above Audit Report,Cpc Has Disallowed The Above Said Outstanding U/S 43B Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 145Section 250Section 43B

BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi PAN : ACFPN3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department

Hotel Selection Grand, Tadepalligudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

ITA 741/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.741/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2016-17) Hotel Selection Grand Gollagundam Centre K.N. Road Tadepalligudem-534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakfh0778C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Aayakar Bhavan, 2-1-56/1 Opp. Punjab National Bank K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Ravish Sood, Jm: : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Sri K.Prasad, Sr.Dr : 12.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 24.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short "A.O”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 06.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: "1. The Notice Under Section 148 Issued On 18.04.20232 For The

Section 115BSection 142ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 234ASection 69A

Appeal before CIT(A) 3. The notice issued under section 148 dated 18.04.2023 is invalid as it has been issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem (JAO) which is against the mandate of the e assessment of income escaping assessment scheme notified on 29.03.2022 by Central Government under

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 533/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक

Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma, Makarpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1821/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17(2)(v)

issue in controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biswas Manik v. Income-tax Officer [2025] 177 taxmann.com 369 / [2025] 214 ITD 197. In the said decision, the Tribunal, after examining sections ... double taxation, which is not permissible under law. 16. Respectfully following the binding decision of the coordinate Bench in Biswas Manik v. Income-tax Officer supra, we hold that the addition made on account of the employer’s contribution to LIC for deferred annuity is not sustainable. Consequently, the addition

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 69A

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603, 607 (SC). In that case the Supreme Court held that the report of the Income-tax Officer did not fulfil the requirements of section 151(2). But, on a perusal of the facts of the case, it is found that they ... bear no resemblance to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Supreme Court observed, the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. He vaguely referred to certain communications

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1874/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Munirathnam Chetty and P Satyanarayana Chetty vs, Income Tax Officer (Supra) held as under: "Having gone through the reasons given by the Income-tax Officer for starting the proceedings under section 147, 1 am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner that reasons have not been recorded ... Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603, 607 (SC). In that case the Supreme Court held that the report of the Income-tax Officer did not fulfil the requirements of section 151(2). But, on a perusal of the facts of the case, it is found that they

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad.

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1873/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1872/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1870/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Dinesh Chand Jain, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 240Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f. 10.7.1978).], by the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] also. [* * *] (3)An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability ... where any such amendment has the effect of reducing the assessment, the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee. (6)Where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing