“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

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Income Tax, Vs. 5/6/183, Govindampalayam Central Circle - 2(2), Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. Chennai. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. The Ita Nos.628 & 629/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

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 ... 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

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

ITA 628/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Vs.5/6/183, Govindampalayam Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 23.07.2025 04.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

3103/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19, 2019-20 Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do." 6. The above observations are squarely applicable to the interpretation of Section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Page 17 ITA No. 2415, 3102, 3103/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do." 6. The above observations are squarely applicable to the interpretation

Indur Thanwerdas Dadlani, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

ITA 2476/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57Section 74

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. For example, when an 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 interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. . . ." (p. 88) The principle which has been laid

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 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 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 of section 251(1)(a). Even otherwise, an appellate authority while hearing

Udai Lal Mahabir Prasad, India vs. Income Tax Officer, India

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

ITA 715/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

Dausa on the same issue (PB 17) which is reproduced as under:- Dated 31 March, 2023 The Income-tax Officer, Ward DAUSA, Rajasthan Reg: Rectification Application u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/S UDAI LAL MAHAVIR PRASAD, H.P. Petrol Pump, Village Lalsot, District Dausa

St. Sebastians Church, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3398/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeest. Sebastians Church Vs Centralized Processing Center, Marouli Road, Marouli, Income-Tax Department, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074 Bengaluru / Income-Tax Officer Pan : Aaats0534R Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 13(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER St. Sebastians Church vs Centralized Processing Center, Marouli Road, Marouli, Income-tax Department, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074 Bengaluru / Income-tax Officer PAN : AAATS0534R Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai 6th Floor, MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Vasanti Patel

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

ITA 691/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

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. It is pertinent to mention here that the CBDT once again issued a circular ... 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." 14. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Court has held that filing of audit report

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 234A

necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, has expressly provided for it, whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables ... confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 234A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 1, Bengaluru vs. Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 2363/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

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

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2319/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL