“Section 144(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 144Section 144(1)119 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 144(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 144(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.

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.

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. 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.

Tin Box Company v. CIT

249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court

624

citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon

321 ITR 362 · 2010 · Supreme Court

623

citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory for completing an assessment under Section 143(3), and the failure to do so renders the assessment invalid. This defect is not curable under Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.

46 ITR 144 · 1962 · Supreme Court

551

citing judgments

Income tax is levied only on real income that actually materializes, not on hypothetical or notional income, even if accounting entries suggest otherwise. If no income results, there is no tax liability.

Judgments citing Section 144(1)

Suryadevara Chalamaiah, Ntr vs. Joint Commissioner Vijayawada, Krishna

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

ITA 17/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 69

completed the assessment to the best of his judgment based on the material available before him as per the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act. While making the assessment, the Ld. AO observed that even though the assessee was asked to explain the nature and the source ... appeal in- limine. The Ld. AO has also passed the order to the best of his judgment by invoking the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Peoples Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3964/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Jane Varghese, Ld. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250

comply with the terms of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and therefore by taking refuge of the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act, the AO proceeded with the completion of assessment as “best judgment assessment”. However, before proceeding further, he issued a final show

Haresh J. Rathod, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 115/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haresh J Rathod Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम Shop No. 7 Hairline Unisex No.2(1)(2), Rajkot, T-Office, Vs. Salon, Amin Marg, Gujarat New Aayakar Bhawan, Housing Board, Rajkot-360 Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Abxpr 2350 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr- DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.115/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 17-18 Haresh J.Rathod 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Khemka Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 241/KOL/2025[201213]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthikhemka Minerals Private Vs Ito, Ward-12(2), Kolkata Limited 1St Floor, Suit No.Ic, Rajeswari Apartment, 113, Southern Avenue, Kalighat, Kolkata Pan No. :Aadck 6012 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)

been full cooperation by the assessee, whereas for framing the assessment u/s.144 of the Act, the conditions mentioned in the provisions of Section 144(1) of the Act were required to be met inasmuch as there should be non- cooperation from the assessee. The assessment order does not talk

Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kadayiruppu vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 598/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 80GSection 92C

ITA No.598/Coch/2024 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI

Pratik Shah, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 224/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 224/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक

Income Tax Officer, Barabanki vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki, U.P. H. No.9, Bhitariya, Ramsanehighat, H/O Baneekodar, Barabanki, U.P. Pan:Ctjpk3341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 13.03.2004 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assesseee Against The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 24.09.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts While Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 77,96,530/- Under Section 69A Of The I.T Act 1961 By Suo-Moto Taking The Bank Deposits As Turnover & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of Rs. 95,83,320/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Complete Details Of Bank Deposits, The Same Is Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 1961. 2. That The Order Of Cit (A), Being Erroneous In Law & In Facts Be Cancelled & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored. 3. Any Other Grounds Arose During The Proceedings Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

even filed his ITR for the assessment year 2017-18 despite issue of notices to him for the said purposes. Therefore, quoting from section 144(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. AO held that, as the assessee had failed to furnish the income tax return ... response to his notices under section 142(1) and to furnish details regarding his income, the provisions of section 144(1)(b) were being invoked to complete the proceedings as a best judgment assessment, after affording the assessee an opportunity with a show cause notice. The ld. AO pointed

Asif Ali Mohd, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

ITA 408/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Asif Ali Mohd, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

ITA 407/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Sri Annapurna Rice Mill, East Godavari Dist vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 123/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Annapurna Rice Mill, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Mandapeta. Income Tax, Pan: Abefs8434K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt. A. Aruna ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. A. ArunaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte based on the material available on record as per the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act as ‘Best Judgment Assessment’. While doing so, the Ld. AO, in the absence of any details, explanation and documentary evidence from the assessee

Shri Palash Kumar Kapas, Howrah vs. ACIT, Cir. 47, Kolkata

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

ITA 1419/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

Page 2 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 1419/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palash Kumar Kapas. the Ld. AO referred to the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act and also section 68 of the Act and observed that the assessee was unable to prove that in his normal business

Shri Harish Chandra, Nainital vs. ITO, Nainital

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

ITA 9/DDN/2024[2017-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2017-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Harish Chandra, Vs. Ao, 48, Thapla, Malital, Nainital, Ward-2(3)(1), Uttarakhand- 263 001 Nainital (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ayypc4939Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, JCIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

represent cash deposits made during the demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes (SBN). Accordingly, the Learned AO issued show-cause notice under section 144(1)(b) of the Act to the Assessee as to why the assessment should not be completed based on the credits found in the bank account

Lala Ram Bagra, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1327/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 548Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Kerele Balwanth Reddy, Ranga Reddy vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 43/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयरअपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad SHRI VIJAY PAL

Kerele Balwanth Reddy, Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

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

ITA 232/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Boogie Woogie Computer Center, Mihijam vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Asansol

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

ITA 818/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 818/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boogie Woogie Computer Center,…..…...……Appellant Boogie Woogie Main Road, Mihijam, P.O. Mihijam, Jharkhand, Pin Code 815354 [Pan:Aapfb0339J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), Asansol, Income Tax Office, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Asansol-713305, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate & Shri Sabyasachi Mondal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 18, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

file the return of income inspite of service of notices. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under section 144(1)(b) of the Act and accordingly notice under section 142(1) alongwith the questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee on 12.07.2019 for furnishing ... income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Finally, income of the assessee was determined by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 144(1) of the Act at the income of Rs.32,51,600/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assesese preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

Madhavan Sundaran Pillai, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Kollam

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

ITA 739/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Sandhya Sital Sangtani, Navi Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 3960/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Ito 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aadpk5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar-Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 By Nfac Delhi Mumbai [In Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”], Vide This Impugned Order By Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2018- 19, Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

cause notice of intention to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act to the Assessee as required by first proviso to section 144(1) of the Act. The preconditions of the section, to enable a best judgement assessment had not been met, IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo

Nanda Filling Station, Sirhind vs. ITO, Ward, Sirhind

ITA 547/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh Sarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 144(1)(b)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

That on basis of information about deposit of Rs.1,24,20,000/- in this account, the ld. AO completed the assessment proceedings under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act and has made addition of Rs.1,24,20,000/- to the income of the firm. 2.4 No notice ... dated 01.12.2019 was/were ever delivered to the firm or to the surviving partner. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings ex-parte under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act. ITA 547/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 4 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 preferred first