“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

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent--if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot

Teckmen Systems, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above terms

ITA 28/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. P. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 55A

tax, Central-II, Mumbai vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estate (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 308 (Bombay), 3 Teckmen Systems b. Shivdeep Tyagi vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 163 taxmann.com 614 (Delhi - Trib.) c. Atul G. Puranik vs. Income-tax Officer, 12(1)(1) [2011] 11 taxmann.com 92 (Mumbai). d. Ritz ... Suppliers (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata [2020] 113 taxmann.com 349 (Kolkata - Trib.) e. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue on the other hand controverted the said

The Executor of Sobhagmal M Patni (Deceased ), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2774/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Executor Of Sobhagmal M Income-Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Patni Deceased Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. 42A, Jolly Maker Apartment-I, Mumbai-400051. Cuffe Parade, Colaba, S.O. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaaae 6964 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Vinit Shah

Section 143(1)

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Executor of Sobhagmal M Income-tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Patni Deceased Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. 42A, Jolly Maker Apartment-I, Mumbai-400051. Cuffe Parade, Colaba, S.O. Mumbai

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment year 2012-13, date of order 17/11/2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 20(1)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter called “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 2 ITA 163/Mum/2024

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1726/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 68

assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." "69. Unexplained investments ... explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year." It is not in dispute

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1725/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Section 153DSection 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-tax Officer, Vs Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Ward-43(6), New Delhi. C-619, Sarasvati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. PAN: AAHHM 2371 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Rameshwaram Steel and Power Private Ltd., Chhattisgarh vs. DCIT, CC-20, Delhi

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

ITA 1015/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rameshwaram Steel & Vs The Deputy Power Private Ltd., . Commissioner Of Income 1, Village Bade Guma, Tax, Ghar Ghoda, Raigarh Central Circle-20, Chhattisgarh New Delhi Delhi- 496001 Pan No. Aaccr7462A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. v Income-tax Officer Ward 2(3), Chennai [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 has held that in case of an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure

Rameshwaram Steel and Power Private Ltd., Chhattisgarh vs. DCIT, CC-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 1014/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Gangunaidu Sabbavarapu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhpatnam

ITA 177/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(37)Section 250Section 254Section 96

Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is co-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." (emphasis supplied ... makes it clear that for the purpose of enhancement, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot travel beyond the proceedings which were originally before the Income-tax Officer or refer to new sources of income which were not before the Income-tax Officer at all. For this purpose, there are other separate

Sanand Sankardas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1102/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 69

view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.148, dated 09.03.2018 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai was not a notice issued by an authority falling within the meaning of “Assessing Officer” i.e. either of the authorities ... case of CIT v. M.I. Builders (P.) Lid. (supra), the assessee had raised the objection with regard to continuation of the proceedings by Income-tax Officer 1 (I), Lucknow on the ground that the said proceedings are illegal as the notice under section 148 of the said Act issued itself

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.397/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम Ito, M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ward-2(4), Vs. Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aacca3522C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.155/Del/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.397/Del/2016) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ito, Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward-2(4), Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aacca3522C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 292BSection 68

held that: - "When this appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as we found the affidavit filed by the Income-tax Officer to be vague and indefinite, we directed the learned counsel for the department to produce before us the records of the Income- tax Officer to show ... that the Income-tax Officer had complied with the requirements of section 148 and section 151(2) of the Act. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on the 18th January, 1971, only the report submitted by the Income-tax Officer to the Commissioner and the order

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Animesh Agarwal, Sikar

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

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 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

District Probation & After Care Association Satara, Satara vs. ITO, Exemption Ward1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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." 14. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Court has held that filing of audit report

Mangilal Datla, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara, Banswara

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL

Vivek Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tinsukia

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of 49,10,958 made by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Tinsukia [hereinafter referred to as "ITO, Tinsukia"] in the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the ITO, Tinsukia under section 143(3) of the Income-tax

Vivek Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tinsukia

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Vivek Agarwal, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tinsukia

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Worthy Tribunals as under: • [2024] 165 taxmann.com 197 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH in the case of Sukhvir Singh v. Income-tax Officer* at page 52-57 of J. Set INCOME TAX : Where Assessing Officer received AIR information that assessee had deposited substantial amount of cash in bank

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Worthy Tribunals as under:  [2024] 165 taxmann.com 197 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH in the case of Sukhvir Singh v. Income-tax Officer* at page 52-57 of J. Set INCOME TAX : Where Assessing Officer received AIR information that assessee had deposited substantial amount of cash in bank