“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-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

held that; "According to section 148 of the Act of 1961, before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section ... shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section. The Income-tax Officer has also, before issuing such notice, to record his reasons for doing so. Section 149 prescribes the time limit for the notice. The time limit

Indian Red Cross Society, Bathinda vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 602/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 602/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Red Cross Society बनाम The DCIT(Exemptions) Circle-1, Chandigarh Red Cross Bhawan, Civil Lines, Bathinda-151001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATI4900K अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 154Section 250

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.” 11.2 In the present case also, the Indian Red Cross Society has been in existence

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

hereby upheld.” The Hyderabad Tribunal has held as follows vide its recent decision dated March 5, 2020 in Bhairaiah Gouryshetty v. Income-tax Officer (ITA 1464/Hyd/2018) and Sreenivasa Reddy Cheemalamarri v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad (ITA 1463/ Hyd/2018) that “From the facts of the case

Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

ITA 127/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 127/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, ITO Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMNPP0638A (Appellant

Satyendra Kumar, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gandhidham

ITA 909/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.909/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Satyendra Kumar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Plot No-72 Ward-7B., Ito Ward – 1, Gandhidham, Kutch - 370201 Gandhidham - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeapk7626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 250

ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.909/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Satyendra Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer, Plot No-72 Ward-7B., ITO Ward – 1, Gandhidham, Kutch - 370201 Gandhidham - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEAPK7626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was further emphatically stated that when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses 11 permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income ... 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." 18. Recently, in Principal CIT v. NYA International [(2025) 173 taxmann.com 103 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that

Sahyog Construction, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Previously Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: PER SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT. DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

framed in the case for the assessment year 1945-46, is set out below: "Whether having regard to the fact that the Income-tax Officer has assessed the income on a percentage basis, he was justified in ITA No. 104/Ahd/2025 [Sahyog Construction vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 6 – treating ... from which s particular income is derived has to be decided on all the facts of the case, In the present case, the Income-tax Officer held the income represented by the credit entries to be income from undisclosed sources, that is, neither from the manihari (general merchandise) nor from