← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

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(1)

Padarthi Venkata Sivanagendra Prasada, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 457/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

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

response to the notices, assessee filed its income Tax return on 20.08.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.4,87,020/-. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates to submit the details and evidences required for the purpose of verification and examination of issues

The Kolavennu Large Sized Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 454/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Kolavennu Large Sized Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(4) Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Office D.No. 3-3/1, Kolavennu Cr Building, 1St Floor, Annex Kankipadu Mandal M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Krishna District - 521153 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabat0640F] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

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

during the demonetization period into the bank account of the assessee. Subsequently, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 24.11.2017 calling for return of income. However, assessee has failed to furnish the return of income. Further, Ld. AO issued ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act on various dates to submit the details and evidences required for the purpose of verification and examination of issues involved in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. In response, assessee has filed return of income on 28.11.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.Nil

Trichur Taluk Co Operative College Educational Society Ltd No R-728, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer-W-2(1), Ayakar Bhavan-Thrissur

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

ITA 644/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Trichur Taluk Co-Op. College .......... Appellant Educational Society Ltd. Kallingal Lane, Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Aaaat7283K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2(1), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Mini Chandran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Mini Chandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 153BSection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM Assessment

Ashish Daulatram Sariya, Ujjain vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Janta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Yetchina Srinivas, Bilaspur vs. DCIT, Circle, 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1904/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 8Section 80CSection 8O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1904/PUN/2025

Satish Vishnu Thombare, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Varsha Prafulla Zende, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

been granted without any application of mind. 7. On 09/10/2019, Respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and Section 142(1) of the Act requesting Petitioner to attend his office on 16/10/2019 at 11.00 a.m. Petitioner, vide order dated 15/10/2019, informed Respondent No.1 that

Madhavi Beeravolu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Signature Towers

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Sangeeta Akkaraju Chandrasekhar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1076/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Condonation Petition, Wherein She Has Mentioned The Reasons For The Delay & Submitted That The Delay Occurred Due To Factors Beyond Her Control, With No Deliberate Intention To Defer The Filing Of The Appeal. On The Other Hand, The Learned Senior A.R. For The Revenue, Shri Mathivanan, S.A. Did Not Strongly Oppose The Condonation Of Delay Petition Filed By The Assessee.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 80CSection 80T

been reopened under Section 147 of the Act, and a notice under Section 148, along with reasons for reopening and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, was issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed a paper return in physical form before

Nagesh Panjala, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 874/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Pullarao Perugu, Ongole vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1132/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271A

dated 28-03- 2021 was issued and served on the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 03-12-2021 and 02-02-2022 were issued. The assessee neither filed his return of income nor furnished relevant details

Sri Tirumala Estates, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1086/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

claimed huge land development expenses of Rs. 4,39,46,592/-. The A.O., vide notice under Section 142(1), dated 10-11-2021, called upon the assessee to substantiate the land development expenses with supporting documents. The assessee submitted the list of 10 Sri Tirumala Estates expenses along with supporting

Pulla Rao Perugu, Prakasam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1035/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271A

dated 28-03- 2021 was issued and served on the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 03-12-2021 and 02-02-2022 were issued. The assessee neither filed his return of income nor furnished relevant details

Grand Ark Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 862/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 191C(6)Section 194C(6)Section 40

Income 55 SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 5. 28.06.2022 | Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act 59 6. 04.08.2022 | Reply to Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated | 62 18.07.2022 7. 19.10.2022 | Reply to Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated | 67 07.10.2022 8. - Details of Cost ... Ledger account of Vaska Consultancy Pvt Ltd 188 Invoice raised by Vaska Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 190 14. | 17.11.2022 | Reply to the Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated | 191 10.11.2022 15. | - Details of Contractual Payments made during the Financial | 197 year 2020-2021 -6 - ITA. No:862/Chny/2025

Bombay Tyres, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

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

Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 2269/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Respondent: None
Section 133Section 37Section 68Section 69CSection 74

However, all such notices were returned unserved with postal remarks such as “not known" or "left". Consequently, the Ld. AO issued notice under Section 142(1) calling upon the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases by producing the concerned parties and furnishing supporting evidences such as delivery challans

Akash Kapoor, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Noida vs. Strawberry Farmer Agro Products, Noida

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4091/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Strawberry Farmer Agro Income Tax, Central Products Circle-I, Office Of The C-3, Sector-7, Noida, Deputy Commissioner Of Gautam Budh Nagar, Income Tax, Central Noida, Up 201301 Circle -0I, Noida, Noida, Up 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxfs6899J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

P a g e | 1 DCIT Vs. Strawberry Farmer Agro Products (AY: 2019-20) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G

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

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