← 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)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Report in Form 10-BB was filed belatedly, though with the Return of Income which was filed within the extended time limit under Section 139(1) of the Act. 2 1.2. The learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the time limit prescribed for filing

Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit, Mahim vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Lower Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

fact gathered by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding that the assessee neither filed its regular return of income under section 139(1) nor filed return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Had the case not been reopened under section 148 on the basis

Azim Kassam Boblai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4391/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Azim Kassam Boblai Vs. Ito, Ward 41(1)(3), A/204, Roshni Mahal, Mumbai Mumbai Puna Road Thane, Kautilya Bhawan, C41- Diwa B.O, Nagaon, Thane, 43, Avenue 3, Near Mumbai- 400612 Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aetpb414J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Azim Kassam Boblai

Infinity Towers Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3557/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Jadhav a/wFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Mumbai vs Vaibhav Co-op Credit Society dated 29.05.2024 9. In our considered view the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, which was subsequently processed under section 143(1). The Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act Infinity

Infinity Towers Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3556/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Jadhav a/wFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Mumbai vs Vaibhav Co-op Credit Society dated 29.05.2024 9. In our considered view the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, which was subsequently processed under section 143(1). The Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act Infinity

Infinity Towers Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO -22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3555/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Jadhav a/wFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Mumbai vs Vaibhav Co-op Credit Society dated 29.05.2024 9. In our considered view the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, which was subsequently processed under section 143(1). The Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act Infinity

Kalyanam Karoti Meerut, Meerut vs. ITO Exemption Gzb, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6505/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Kalyanam Karoti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 105, First Floor, Cgo Ii, Exemption, Hapur, Chungi, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Aaaak2780N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 139(1)

claim for the sole reason of belated filing of tax audit report Form 10B, on or before the due date of filing of section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the above compliance of timely filing of Form 10B tax audit report is mandatory. Case

Rajesh Sivan, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 688/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rajesh Sivan .......... Appellant Adhibhavan, Thrikkakara S.O., Ernakulam [Pan: Banps8167A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lukose Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential Houses. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed For Ay 2019-20 By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Made Deposits In Bank Of Baroda & Federal Bank Aggregating To Rs. 39,86,000/- , The Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act, 1961 (The 2 Rajesh Sivan Act) 29.03.2023. In Response To Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 28.04.2023 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 6,12,020/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 14.02.2024 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 45,98,020/-. While Doing So, The Ao Treated The Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts Of Rs. 39,86,000/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant & Brought To Tax The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Lukose Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

appellant is an individual engaged in the business of construction of residential houses. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2019-20 by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant

Francis Liston, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Noncorporate Ward 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 673/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Francis ListonFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

M. Agathiyan, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 2521/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2521/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuvel Agathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Keela Fourth Street, Mannargudi Ward 1, Post, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur 614 001. Thiruvarur. [Pan:Aihpa1940J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate Drew Our Attention To Ground No. K Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal & Submits That The Assessee Challenged

For Appellant: Shri S. Kaarthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 135ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

examined and therefore, we proceed to admit ground for adjudication. 5. We note that the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at ₹.4,85,110/-, which includes salary income and loss on house property only. The said return was processed

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Usha Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 127/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Chandmiya Miyajan Qureshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5172/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Virqabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

The Krishna Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Jaggaiahpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 130/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

case are, assessee is a society rendering services and providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld.AO"] issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated ... erred in appraising that the return filed by the assessee is an invalid return since the same is not filed under section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act without considering that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80P, the return of income is required to be filed

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a non-resident Indian. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant. The DCIT (International Taxation) LKN (hereinafter called "the AO"), based

Jojo, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 769/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jojo .......... Appellant Kattalapeedika House, Mattathur, Thrissur [Pan: Bycpj5296A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vibin K.K., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 20,00,000/- The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vibin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2020-21 was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant had sold immovable ... Undisputedly, the appellant had sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant. However, in response to notice issues u/s. 148 the appellant had filed return of income disclosing

Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

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

ITA 768/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

case are that the appellant is an individual. The appellant had not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash amounting