← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

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.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

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.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Sharanappa, Yadagir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

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

ITA 1198/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Insight Print Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Vaibhav Nandkishor Patil, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 3 (4), Kalyan, Thane District

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1672/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Nandkishor Patil, Income Tax Officer 3 (4), Kalyan, C-602, Patel Heritage, Mumbai Sector, Kharghar Maharashtra -421301 Vs. Mumbai Maharastra-410210 (Pan: Amxpp0196M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Praveen Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A), Panchkula, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1073638541(1), Dated 24.02.2025, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By Ito Ward 3(2), Kalyan, Dated 23.02.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing The Entire Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Rs.15,47,224 Without Making Any Independent Inquiry By Treating The Purchases As Bogus In Nature On Mere Suspicion That The Parties Were Listed On Website Of Mvat

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

which has escaped assessment. Notice under section 148 was issued on 05.04.2013. 3 Vaibhav Nandkishor Patel AY 2011-12 Subsequently, statutory notices under Section 142(1) were issued on the assessee seeking explanation in this regard, which were duly complied with. Assessee submitted that it maintains regular, books of accounts

Pravin Mohanlal Selvadia, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4329/MUM/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Pravin Selvadia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2571/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmaharashtra Airport Development Company World Trade Centre, Tower-1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ............... Appellant Pan: Aadcm9623M

For Appellant: Shri Rushab MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has maintained fixed deposits with certain banks

ACIT, Circle - 34(1), Delhi, Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Gurkirat Bpo Services LLP, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 697/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Gurkirat Bpo Services Llp, Circle 34(1), G-21, Flat No.256-257, Delhi. Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 009. Pan: Aaqfg4414J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhur, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi vs. Apoorva Leasing Finance and Investment Company Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Apoorva Leasing Finance & Central Circle-3, Investment Company Ltd., Delhi. Third Floor, 13/331, Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031. Pan: Aabca0282A Co No.179/Del/2025 (Ita No.635/Del/2025) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Apoorva Leasing Finance & Vs. Dcit, Investment Company Ltd., Circle-3(1), Third Floor, 13/331, New Delhi. Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031. Pan: Aabca0282A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Mukul Monga, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. Further, various notices issued under Section 142(1) dated 24.10.2019, 05.11.2019 and as on various other dates were issued to the assessee and served through e-mail as well as through

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. The Indure Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4640/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. The Indure Private Limited, Income Tax, Indure House, Greater Kailash Part Ii, Delhi South Delhi 1100 48 Pan :Aaact0121C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 were issued. Notices under Section 143(2) of the Act copies under Section 142(1) of the Act as well as show-cause- notice were issued. The assessee filed reply. Notices under Section 142(1) dated 27.12.2022 and 11.02.2023 were issued

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Mahesh Kumar Verma, Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 807/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 68

Jewellers, a proprietorship concern of Shri Mahesh Kumar Verma of Delhi. The case was centralized to Circle-II, Noida. Subsequently, a notice under Section 142(1) was issued followed by notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 24.09.2018. The assessment was finalized upon making addition in the hands

Mahesh Kumar Verma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 68

Jewellers, a proprietorship concern of Shri Mahesh Kumar Verma of Delhi. The case was centralized to Circle-II, Noida. Subsequently, a notice under Section 142(1) was issued followed by notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 24.09.2018. The assessment was finalized upon making addition in the hands

Rohan Promotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4849/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 20.03.2014 followed by notice under Section 142(1) on 17.07.2024. The Assessment under Section 147/144 of the Act was finalized on 29.08.2014 at the total income of Rs. 19,28,500/- against

M/S Rohan Promotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 968/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 20.03.2014 followed by notice under Section 142(1) on 17.07.2024. The Assessment under Section 147/144 of the Act was finalized on 29.08.2014 at the total income of Rs. 19,28,500/- against

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sandur Bypass Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1974/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Acit, M/S Sandur Bypass Projects Pvt. Central Circle-14, Ltd., Room No.- 354, E-2, Ara Centre, Vs E-9, 3Rd Floor, Ndse Part-Ii, Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi-55 New Delhi-110049. Pan- Aakcs3657A Revenue Assessee

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Shri Shah Afroze Hossain, Bhagalpur vs. Dy. CIT, Cent, Cir-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 711/PAT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.711/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain.….…………………....…………………....Appellant 12, Shahganjhi, Habibpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812006. [Pan: Aapph1112D] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Patna-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹75,56,770, Comprising The Income From Business Of ₹6,54,569, Long- Term Capital Gains: ₹49,60,293 & Income From Other Sources Of ₹19,35,912. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out On 29.12.2022 At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee Pursuant To A Warrant Of Authorisation Issued By The Director Of Investigation, Patna. During The Course Of The Search

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.06.2023, followed by statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act from time to time. The assessee duly filed replies and produced details as called for. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs. Deepak Kumar, Ludhiana

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 721/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: it is finally disposed off."

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 251Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Sudarshan Jeans Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

failure on part of assessee either (a) to make a return of income under section 139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148; or (b) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. In case where

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Falguni Suryakant Thakar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1563/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

John D Silva, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 615/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar S V
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

holding that the return of income filed by the Appellant on 31.08.2019 being filed after due date prescribed in the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is in violation