← All Phrases

“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before CIT(A) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before CIT(A)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court
441
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

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.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Judgments citing appeal before CIT(A)

DCIT- 12 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Guruashish Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2861/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 115JSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

accordingly, the WIP is suitably reduced by an amount of Rs.22,37,67,856/.” 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A) and contended that: (a) entire brokerage was paid by cheque. 6 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (b) brokerage was paid for sale FSI amounting

Ahcl Pel, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed while Ground No

ITA 2011/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80I

respect of the aforesaid amount of INR 4,31,13,672/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A) who restricted the addition to INR 2,66,75,360/-. The Assessee had claimed that the difference in per square feet prices was on account

Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ahcl Pel, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed while Ground No

ITA 1859/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80I

respect of the aforesaid amount of INR 4,31,13,672/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A) who restricted the addition to INR 2,66,75,360/-. The Assessee had claimed that the difference in per square feet prices was on account

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

total Rs.6,85,00,000) is added to the total income declared under the head other sources. 12. Against this, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the books of account of M/s. GIPL, which is a closely held company, there were

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

total Rs.6,85,00,000) is added to the total income declared under the head other sources. 12. Against this, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the books of account of M/s. GIPL, which is a closely held company, there were

Income Tax Officer-3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patodia Systex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5641/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

increasing profits by INR 29,87,028/-. 7 ITA. No. 5641/Mum/2019 & CO No.21/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 9. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that the interest added by the Assessing Officer pertained to an old outstanding loan granted by the Assessee

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Your Honor That The Said Disallowance May Kindly Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

inter alia, a disallowance of INR 27,15,12,687/- under Section 14A of the Act. The Appellant challenged the aforesaid disallowance in appeal before CIT(A) who granted relief to the Appellant vide order, dated 23.03.2019, by restricting the disallowance to INR 5,86,52,973/- being ... vide order, dated 23.03.2019, in relation to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act. 3.2 The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 30.12.2019, passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act which was partly allowed

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Projects Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

ITA 1165/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

Sales Tax/Work Contract Tax but not paid till the date of filing of return of income . 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of INR 3,78,15,218 under Section 43B of the Act accepting the contention of the Assessee

DCIT Tax - (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S the J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

ITA 2257/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2257/मुं/2021("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The J.K.Trust Bombay, Ground Floor, New Hind House, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatt-0611-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] Dated 21/06/2021, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 104 Days. The Assessing Officer Has Filed An Application Explaining Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Attributed To Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking In To 2 Consideration The Hardship Caused To The Litigants In The Extra Ordinary Circumstances The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India Taking Suo-Motu Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation Reported As 132 Taxamann.Com 123 Extended The Period Of Limitation Under General Laws Of Limitation & Special Laws. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Within The Extended Period Of Limitations, Hence, No Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24/03/2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts of the case held that the facts are identical to the facts in Assessment Year

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal by Revenue (ITA No

ITA 900/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] for the Assessment Year 2014-15, appeal No. [CIT(A)-54/IT-272/DC.CC.6(4)/2016-17], and Assessment Year ITA No. 900 & 902/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 2015-16, appeal No. [CIT(A)-54/IT-269/DC.CC.6 ... disallowance of INR 50,80,34,481/- made under Section 14A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the additions made by the Assessing Officer while computing income under normal provisions of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee

DCIT- 19(1), Mumbai vs. Bhansali & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7316/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Apurva R ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Perampurna
Section 10D(1)(a)Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

challenged the order dated 03.09.2018, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] appeal No. [CIT(A)- 55/IT-88/2017-18, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee ITA Nos. 7316/Mum/2018 ... international transaction amounting to INR 82,82,96,698/-, was levied on the Assessee 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee vide order dated 01.10.2021 holding as under: “6. The appeal is filed

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeal (ITA No

ITA 7749/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Assessing Officer increased Book Profits by the amount disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee by restricting the disallowance (a) on account of bogus purchases ... with the relevant documents. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of INR 8,67,73,526/-. In appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases since the Assessing Officer had not doubted the consumption/sales. 7.3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before

Dy CIT 9 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atlanta Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeal (ITA No

ITA 7695/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Assessing Officer increased Book Profits by the amount disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee by restricting the disallowance (a) on account of bogus purchases ... with the relevant documents. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of INR 8,67,73,526/-. In appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases since the Assessing Officer had not doubted the consumption/sales. 7.3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2922/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

Aggrieved by the order of the AO denying benefit of deduction u/s.35AD of the Act, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The ITA Nos.2921 & 2922/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 24 CIT(A) agreed with the findings of the AO in both the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15. With regard

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2921/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

Aggrieved by the order of the AO denying benefit of deduction u/s.35AD of the Act, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The ITA Nos.2921 & 2922/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 24 CIT(A) agreed with the findings of the AO in both the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15. With regard

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 7001/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M M GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

issue are that the Appellant being aggrieved by the intimation, dated 31.01.2017, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act filed appeal before CIT(A) – 10, Mumbai which was disposed off vide order, dated 28.06.2018. The Appellant not being satisfied filed appeal (ITA No. 5562/Mum/2018) before the Tribunal which

M/S Sonic Biochem Extraction Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed

ITA 3071/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Vikas Awasthy & Sh. Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 3070/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2013-14) आअसं. 3071/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15) M/S. Sonic Biochem Extractions Ltd., 7A Vimal Udyog Bhavan, Shivaji Park, Matunga West, Mumbai 400 016 Pan: Aabcs-5326-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dcit-8(2)(2), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ChimnaniFor Respondent: Shri Hosang B. Irani
Section 115J

scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer inter-alia made adhoc disallowance/addition of certain business related expenditure. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted adhoc disallowance in respect of ‘Loss of Goods in Transit’ and ‘Quality Rebate’ and confirmed adhoc disallowance in respect

M/S Sonic Biochem Extraction Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed

ITA 3070/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Vikas Awasthy & Sh. Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 3070/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2013-14) आअसं. 3071/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15) M/S. Sonic Biochem Extractions Ltd., 7A Vimal Udyog Bhavan, Shivaji Park, Matunga West, Mumbai 400 016 Pan: Aabcs-5326-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dcit-8(2)(2), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ChimnaniFor Respondent: Shri Hosang B. Irani
Section 115J

scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer inter-alia made adhoc disallowance/addition of certain business related expenditure. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted adhoc disallowance in respect of ‘Loss of Goods in Transit’ and ‘Quality Rebate’ and confirmed adhoc disallowance in respect

M/S. Suraj Ganga Developers LLP, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudheendra Kumar S.K., DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 80I

CIT(A) is against the principles of natural Justice. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before CIT(A) stating that the delay was due to inaction and negligence on part of the Appellant inspite of the bonafide intent of Appellant ... charge. The Application for Condonation of delay in filing Form l0CCB was filed with CBDT on 14/10/2020 and parallely, decided to go for appeal with CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal is delayed by 333 days only due to the Lack of co- ordination in CA office for which the appellant

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

iota of doubt that this transaction is not hit by section 13(2)(h) of the Act.” 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 26.03.2015. The CIT(A), vide order dated 23.02.2018, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer as regards invocation