← All Phrases

“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)

Shamrock International Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Income Tax Department. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4785/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1) Shamrock International Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 83-E, Hansraj Pragji Bldg, Road, Churchgate, Dr. E. Moses Road, Worlki, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400018. Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5756L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69

assessed in the manner proposed to be done by him. There is no express denial of this well- established common law right in section 142(3). Sub-section (3) of section 142 deals with a stage before the ITO comes to a tentative decision or proposal to determine the total

D H Polymer Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 554/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dh Polymers Pvt. Ltd. V. The Cit(A) F-37, Site-2, Panki Kanpur Industrial Area Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aabcd0681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-5, Pune vs. Renu Electronics Private Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.353/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.18/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Ita No.353/Pun/2024 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection C.O. No.18/Pun/2024 Filed By The

Section 10ASection 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the Assessing Officer(AO) in the order under section 147 read with section 142(3) had disallowed Rs.6,48,164/- on account of depreciation and disallowed Rs.98,42,886/- which were claimed ITA No.353/PUN/2024 & C.O. No.18/PUN/2024 under section

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 308/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142Section 142(2)Section 142(3)

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

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

assessment made under section 144 of the Act. In the case of a best judgment assessment, as per the provision of section 142(3), there is no requirement of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of the material gathered by the Assessing Officer whereas

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

assessment made under section 144 of the Act. In the case of a best judgment assessment, as per the provision of section 142(3), there is no requirement of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of the material gathered by the Assessing Officer whereas

Sharda Kanoria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 797/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A

Shri Ganga Four Wheels Private Limited, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders to cost

ITA 169/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 69B

itself which provides that the material collected by the AO must be confronted to the assessee before making any addition. Section 142(3) reads as under: “The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material ... come across that no opportunity by way of show cause notice was given to the assessee before making addition of Rs.17.71 lacs whereas Section 142(3) of the Act itself provides that material collected by the AO must be confronted to the assessee before making any addition. Therefore

Msg All Trading International Private Limited, Shahdra vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3276/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3276/Del/2023 (A.Y 2018-19)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved jain, Adv & sh. Aman
Section 115BSection 142(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 68

back of the assessee, without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same in violation of statutory provision of Section 142(3) of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Deepti Agrawal, New Delhi

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

ITA 224/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshdcit Vs. Deepti Agrawal Central Circle – 15 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 48/Del/2024 (In Ita No.224/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Deepti Agrawal Vs. Dcit 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, Central Circle – 15 Civil Lines, New Delhi New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

with 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

P S Metal Store, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 851/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narinder Kumara.Yr. : 2007-08 P S Metal Store, Ito Ward 63(3), 5837, Basti Harphool Singh, Vs. New Delhi – 110 002 Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006 (Pan: Adbpj5099C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: : Shri Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

back of the assessee, without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same in violation of statutory provision of section 142(3) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming

Dilip Bhavarilal Gaud, Jalna vs. Income Tx Office Ward 1(3), Jalna

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 867/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.867/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Bhavarilal Gaud, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 133-134 Near Nagar Bank, Ward-1(3), Jalna. Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahhpd6694F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 02.03.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, The Honorable Cit Appeal Coimbatore Has Erred Dilip Bhavarilal Gaud [A]

Section 139(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

ITO-24(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Rama Rajiv Jagdale, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3131/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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

Shivam Enterprises, Harda vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 224/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishivam Enterprises Nfac 483, Lal Bangla, Lal Bhadhur Delhi Shastri Ward Vs. Tahsil Harda Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acdfs1727R Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31 .07.2024

Section 142(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of section 142(3) by not providing the information and documents gathered which formed the basis of inquiry and in the absence of an opportunity of being heard given

Shri Vikram N. Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

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

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7440/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

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

1 ACIT Vs. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Nahan, Sirmour

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 186/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 186/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, Limited, बनाम Nahan, Kala Amb, Sirmour Sirmour "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

further argued 11 186-Chd-2024 & SA-12-Chd-2024 – Radiant Cement Company Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour, H.P. that the plain reading that Section 142(3) of the Act of the Income Tax Act clearly says that ‘The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given

Sri Sujit Singhania, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 935/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

back of the assessee and were not provided during the course of assessment proceedings. The same is not compliance with the provisions of section 142(3) of the Act which is a statutory mandatory procedural requirement. He further stated that during the assessment proceedings summons were issued to the assessee ... course of assessment and utilised for the purpose of assessment without complying with the mandatory statutory procedural requirement stated in section 142(3). In the present case before us, from the perusal of the impugned assessment order, as a matter of fact, it is noted that

Manak Chand Daga, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 17/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

back of the assessee, without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same in violation of statutory provision of section 142(3) of the Act. Manak Chand Daga vs. ITO 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both

Manak Chand Daga, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 16/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the detailed submissions before him with grounds of appeal. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not complied to the various notices for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A), since, no representation was forthcoming from the assessee side, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue based on the information available on record. Accordingly, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

back of the assessee, without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same in violation of statutory provision of section 142(3) of the Act. Manak Chand Daga vs. ITO 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both