← All Phrases

“Section 187(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 187Section 187(3)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 187(3) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 187(3)

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.

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC
313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court
144
citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

Shri H.H. Rama Varma v. CIT
187 ITR 308 · 1991 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

The phrase "any sum" in Section 68 of the Income-tax Act refers only to a "sum of money" or "physical receipt," and does not include non-cash transactions, book entries, notional adjustments, or payments in kind.

CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction
83 ITR 187 · 1972 · Supreme Court
42
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits cannot be made if the assessee has not commenced its business operations.

Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal); M.A. UnneeriKutti v. CIT
198 ITR 147 · 1992 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Establishing the identity of a creditor is insufficient to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of a loan under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee must prove both aspects to discharge their onus.

Judgments citing Section 187(3)

Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2203/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2203/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, V. Dcit, 19 Al, Mudali Street, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Nehru Nagar, Chennai. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. [Pan:Aidpg 5262 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 197Section 69

failed to pay the entire tax liability under the A.Y. 2017-18 :- 5 -: scheme within the prescribed time. As per the provisions of Section 187(3) of the Finance Act, 2016, where the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty within the specified time, the declaration made under

Uma Maheswari, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2858/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K. Iliayaraja, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

that since the Tax / Surcharge / Penalty as contemplated in section 184 / 185 of the FA 2016 have not been paid, by virtue of section 187(3) the declaration is deemed never to have been made and Uma Maheswari :: 5 :: that therefore such declaration cannot be admitted in evidence against ... assessee. We do not find any force in the argument of the Ld.AR since section 187(3) provides that where the tax / surcharge / penalty in respect of a declaration made u/s.183 is not paid within the specified date, the same shall be deemed never to have been made. 55. Section

Umamaheswari, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2033/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

Form-2 under the Income Declaration Scheme is mandatory and that, in the absence of service of Form-2, the provisions of sections 187(3) and 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 cannot be invoked. The Tribunal further held that any addition made under section 69 of the Income ... that since the Tax / Surcharge / Penalty as contemplated in section 184 / 185 of the FA 2016 have not been paid, by virtue of section 187(3) the declaration is deemed never to have been made and that therefore such declaration cannot be admitted in evidence against the assessee

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

section 186 prescribes the manner of declaration and section 187 provides for the time for payment of tax / surcharge / penalty. Section 187(3) clearly provides that if the declarant fails to pay tax / surcharge / penalty in respect of the declaration made u/s.187 on or before the date specified under ... that since the Tax / Surcharge / Penalty as contemplated in section 184 / 185 of the FA 2016 have not been paid, by virtue of section 187(3) the declaration is deemed never to have been made and that therefore such :-18-: ITA. Nos:1565 & 1566/Chny/2025 declaration cannot be admitted in evidence

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. Aacit, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

section 186 prescribes the manner of declaration and section 187 provides for the time for payment of tax / surcharge / penalty. Section 187(3) clearly provides that if the declarant fails to pay tax / surcharge / penalty in respect of the declaration made u/s.187 on or before the date specified under ... that since the Tax / Surcharge / Penalty as contemplated in section 184 / 185 of the FA 2016 have not been paid, by virtue of section 187(3) the declaration is deemed never to have been made and that therefore such :-18-: ITA. Nos:1565 & 1566/Chny/2025 declaration cannot be admitted in evidence

Nandu Atmaram Wajekar, Panvel Dist Raigad vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel Dist Raigad

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

ITA 67/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Nandu Atmaram Wajekar Acit, Panvel C001 Plot No.257, Shree Vs. Mahalaxmi Rupali Cinema Road, Panvel – 410206, Maharashtra Pan: Aadpw9879Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 183Section 187(1)Section 187(3)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Podduturi Rajashekhar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 739/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 197Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)

either in hand or in the bank account, and had not invested the same in any asset. The A.O. observed that as per Section 187(3) of IDS, 2016, on the failure of the declarant to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty, in respect of the declaration made u/s 187 ... original return of income for the said year. The A.O., based on the aforesaid facts, was of the view that as per Section 187(3) of IDS, 2016, the assessee had made a default u/s 270A of the Act by underreporting his income by an amount of Rs. 20 lacs

Nandu Atmaram Wajekar, Panvel Raigad District vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Panvel Raigad

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

ITA 66/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bharat H ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 147Section 183Section 183(1)Section 184Section 185Section 187(1)Section 187(3)Section 197

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Sunil Damodar Naik, Thane vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 436/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 183Section 187(1)Section 187(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu (HUF), Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 173/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu Tax, Circle-1, (Huf), Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aahhj3600A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 183Section 184Section 185Section 187Section 187(3)Section 197Section 271Section 271F

agricultural land sold through M/s. Sri Satya Sai Housing. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that as per section 187(3) of IDS, 2016 if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty in respect of declaration made under section 183 on or before ... argued in support of the same. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that as per section 187(3) of IDS, 2016 if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty in respect of declaration made under section

Sanjay Patil, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

In the result Appeal of the Assessee Allowed

ITA 1239/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Shamrao Patil, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 2013/3, Anu Krishna Niwas E Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Ward, Rukmini Nagar, Maharashtra – 416001. Pan: Abqpp6417K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 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 30.03.2024For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1) The Order Dated 30-03-2024 Hearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1063699666(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon'Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Sanjay Patil[A]

Section 148Section 187(3)Section 250

Assessment order the AO observed that since assessee failed to pay the Tax of Rs.7,94,032/- , as per provisions of Section 187(3) & 197 of IDS 2016, Income of Rs.17,64,513/- was treated as Income of AY 2017-18, hence notice u/s 148 was issued in the case

Thota Venkateswara Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 Lb Nagar Ss Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Abipt6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 187(3)Section 69A

obtaining necessary approval. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 02.08.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. The Ld.AO invoked the provisions of section 187(3) and also 197(b) of the Income Declaration Scheme in 2016 (IDS) and concluded that tax has not been paid