“Section 142(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(3)111 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 142(3)

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(3)

Shailesh Kumar, Meerut vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut

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

ITA 2108/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalshailesh Kumar, Asst. Cit (Central) C/O Malik & Co. Meerut. (Advisors & Advocate- Vs. Since 1927), 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Argpk0548N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv., Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv.,Shri Murtaza Shuberi, Adv. & Shri Praveen Bansal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Shailesh Kumar Vs. Acit 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out On 24.05.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & It Was Covered In The Search In The Case Of H.S. Tewari Group Of Cases. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 142(3)/153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Making Addition Of Rs.12,01,153/- As The Assessee Failed To Prove The Source Of The Investment In Construction.

Section 132Section 142(3)Section 153Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ITO, Nashik vs. Ankit Naresh Tulsian, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2233/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

with the materials and statements allegedly used by him to hold the transactions as sham. Thus, the AO has failed to comply with section 142(3) of the Act as well as the principles of audi alteram partem thereby resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice. I also

Narendra Shantilal Bapna, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

drawing the adverse conclusion. Such an approach adopted by ld. Assessing Officer is not in compliance with the provisions of section 142(3) of the Act which is a statutory mandatory procedural requirement for making a valid assessment. We note that the required compliance with section 142(3

Gupta Subhash & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 34(3), Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 610/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhiraja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Saloni Girrajkishor Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer does not get vitiated merely because Assessing Officer did not allow cross examination, is not in compliance with the provisions of section 142(3) of the Act which is a statutory mandatory procedural requirement for making a valid assessment. We note that the required compliance with section 142

Anoop Jain HUF, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA No.4038/Del/2018 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4042/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA No.4038/Del/2018 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ritu Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA No.4038/Del/2018 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax - 7(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Master Chain Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5397/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/w Ms. SoumyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Vikram Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1263/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

material collected at the back of the assessee without giving assessee an opportunity to rebut the same in violation of provisions of section 142(3) of the Act. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts

Avon Containners Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5161/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

that opportunity of cross examination of witness of the revenue and opportunity of confrontation of back material [as mandated on A.O as per section 142(3)] on basis of which case reopened of 3 Avon Containners P. Ltd. appellant is not provided to the appellant company, which is in violation

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

information/material from the assessee. Section142 (2) empowers the A.O. to make such enquiry as may be necessary for the purpose of such assessment. Section 142 (3) mandates that the information/evidence collected pursuant to the enquiry conducted u/s 142(2), which is proposed to be utilized during the assessment, shall first ... 3). There is, thus, a specific procedure that must be followed by the A.O. while making an assessment under the Income Tax Act. Section 142 (3) uses the word ‘shall', thus, rendering the same to be by no means discretionary upon the whims and fancies

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi vs. Sanjeev Agrawal HUF, Delhi

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

ITA 2035/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

made ws 144 which is not so in the present appeal before us. In the present case before us, requirement mandated by section 142(3) has not been complied with by the ld. AO in completing the impugned assessment 8.6. On careful reading of the show cause notice issued

Vijay Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 28(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

absence of the material made available to the assessee which ought to have been provided by complying with the specific provisions of section 142(3) of the Act, we note that the required compliance with section 142(3) has not been met. 9. Before considering the plea as stated above ... collected the details and material utilised for the purpose of the assessment. In the present case before us, thus, the requirement mandated by section 142(3) has not been complied with in completing the impugned assessment. 13. We refer to the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta

K B Associates, Guwahati vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Guwahati

ITA 46/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld AO. Full compliance was not even after penalty u/s 274 r.w.s 272A(1)(d) was imposed for incomplete compliance. Further, in the appeal proceeding also, the appellant has filed written submission only with respect to ground of appeal no 6. No details have been furnished except form no 26. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellant all the compliances were made is totally incorrect. Under the circumstances, I find that Ld AO has correctly rejected the books of the appellant an

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 274

made by the Id. AO on estimation in gross violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions of section 142(3) of the Act and therefore, bad in law and unsustainable. 4. For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the order of assessment having been

Ram Narayan Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 32, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1090/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri AmanFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 124Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 274

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 148

Assessing Officer prior to recording of reasons for re- opening of assessment makes the reopening bad in law. 6. The provisions of Section 142(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly states that -"The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity ... supplied any copy of material which is relied upon by the Assessing Officer while making the additions which is in violation to Section 142(3) as stated supra. 29. Hence, even on merits, the submissions at Para 23 to 30 are relied upon and hence such adhoc additions without

Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.259/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal Proprietor: Shri Narayan Rice Industries, Main Road, Samhar B.O, Samhar, P.O. Bagbahra, Dist.: Mahasamund-493 449 Pan: Acopa8043K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 131Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2

cross-examination of statements recorded u/s.131 that formed the basis of addition. 8. Disallowance made without confronting the assessee with brokers' statements violating Section 142(3) and principles of natural justice is liable to be deleted. 3 Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-Mahasamund 9. Modified Ground: Purchases were

Mohd Sagir, Aligarh vs. ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 10/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA (Through Physical/Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Meena Hasmukh Savla, Matunga Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2910/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

listing requirements of the stock exchange so as to conclude on an adverse finding recorded by the authorities below. 8. 5. Also, under section 142(3), it is incumbent upon the ld. AO to give an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered by him and proposed ... made u/s 144 which is not so in the present appeal before us. In the present case before us, requirement mandated by section 142(3) has not been complied with by the ld. AO in completing the impugned assessment. 8. 6. On careful reading of the show cause notice issued