← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

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. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Poovachal Rural Housing Society Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 80P

operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was not filed for AY 2014-15. However, based on the information that the appellant made a cash deposit

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

account no. 47662011000009 of Bank of India, Mihijam. As the assessee had not filed the return of income voluntarily as required under section 139(1) of the Act, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 23.11.2017 calling for return of income on or before 23.12.2017, but the assessee

Mohammed Sabirul Islam, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 43(1)Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1206/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Mohammed Sabirul Islam,………………...……Appellant 19B/3, Dumdum Road, Near Tank No. 7, Kolkata-700030, West Bengal [Pan:Aaspi4453M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-43(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 18, 2025

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, proprietor of Smart Group, who filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the relevant assessment year. Intimation was issued by the CPC, Bangalore and rectification order was passed ... payment of PF & ESI was made just after the statutory provision as per the Act and before filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act, the whole amount was paid. The ld. Assessing Authority added back the whole amount without considering the payment made. On being aggrieved

G2254 Seevadi Paccs, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 257/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80P

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी ’ "यायपीठ, चे"न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Anand Mahabal Shetty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 593/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) Anand Mahabal Shetty Adit, Cpc, C/402, Chavandai Chs Bangalore/Acit Opposite Rajpark, Parsik Vs. Qureshi Mansion Nagar, Kalwa, Thane Gokhale Road Mumbai-400 060. Thane-400 602. Pan : Aopps4358Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishn KediaFor Respondent: None
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Om Prakash Kant (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM

Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jpr, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

assessee was not a valid return of income as the original return of income was not filed as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act and therefore, he considered the revised return of income as a further information filed by the assessee. 3.1 Ld. AO noted that

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 706/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Dhan Prasad Nepal, Gangtok vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Sikkim

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

ITA 1888/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1888/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dhan Prasad Nepal,……..………….……..……Appellant Raley Khasey, Khasey Busty, Samdong, Gangtok, East Sikkim-737101, Sikkim, India [Pan:Akbpn4276G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………….……...Respondent Ward-3(1), Sikkim, White Hall, Bhanu Path Road, Sikkim-737101, India Appearances By: Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

business activities of the assessee are executed/conducted in the State of Sikkim. As the assessee did not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year within the due time, his case was reopened and notice under section

Ey Global Delivery Services India LLP, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2386/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: S/Shri Keerti Narayan & Chavali Narayan, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 139(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Raj Coop Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Mumbai ITO 22.3.1, Pirmal Chambers

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 508/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 508/Mum/2025 (Ay 2023-24) (Physical Hearing) Raj Coop Housing Society, Ito, Ward 30(1)(5) Cts Raj Palace 11Th Road, Mumbai बनाम Khar West, Mumbai-400052 Vs Pan : Aaaar 6493 H] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80P

provision of section 80AC, for claiming such deduction, the assessee was required to file return of income within due date specified under section 139(1). The ld CIT(A) has not followed the decision of Rajkot Bench in Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd Vs ADIT in ITA No. 269/Rjt/2022 dated ... provision of section 80AC, for claiming such deduction, the assessee was required to file return of income within due date specified under section 139(1) which was 31.10.2023. We find that delay in filing revised return of income has now been allowed by ld PCIT vide his order dated

Ed 1744 Rayapalayam Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2930/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2930/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-2022) Ed1744 Rayapalayam Milk Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Cooperative Society Ltd, Ward 2(1) Rayapalayam, Erode Nadiyanur Post, Erode 638 107. [Pan: Aaaae 6841Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Adv (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, Adv (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार

Sbw Udyog Limited, Prayagraj vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/ALLD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

date as assigned in that Act and did not extend upto the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1), he held that the CPC had correctly made the disallowance of Rs.43,04,355/- under section 36(1)(va)of the Act on delayed payment

Radhey Shyam Agarwal (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Gaurav Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1449/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35ASection 73ASection 80

under the head business on 26.03.2014 u/s. 139(4) of the Act, which is beyond the time limit prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. The return for the year under consideration the assessee declared a positive income of Rs. 13, 65,575/- before set-off of unabsorbed ... only if the return for the year incurring loss has been filed within the time limit as prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. This amendment CPC, Bengaluru perceived as retrospective change, hence disallowed the claims of the assessee for the A.Y.s

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amsri Builders, Secunderabad

ITA 1898/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon'Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amsri Builders, Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1897/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

notice under Section 153A of the Act, in case the said claim was not made in the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 23. On appeal before the LD.CIT(A), the LD.CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee on the grounds that

Empee Educational Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT Appeals, National Appeals Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 3302/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3302/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Empee Educational Foundation, The Income Tax Officer, No.63B, Nehru Salai, Vs. Exemptions Ward-2, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaate 2016J]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gounthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Prakash Kapoorchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, CA and Shri Vipul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

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

Himachal Pradesh Nurces Registration Council, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward Solan

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 387/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms Isha Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions, Solan, Himachal Pradesh

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 386/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms Isha Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

under section 271F of the Act for failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the return of income as required under section 139(1) of the Act. However, it is clearly evident from the record that there was neither any recording of satisfaction by the AO for initiating