“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O. Kapil Horane, S Ward-2, Pandharpur. Chandrabhaga Ghat, Pandharpur, Solapur-413304. Pan: Aadph0707N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 30.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.12.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

Subsequently, Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.10.2022 and notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16.11.2022 and on 06.03.2023. The Assessing Officer, on examination of incriminating material seized vide annexure no. ANN/PP/RA/LS/S-30 from Shri ... made cash repayment to the tune of ₹.92,50,000/- on various dates to Shri G.N. Anbuchezhianand accordingly issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 16.11.2022. In response to the said notice, the reply furnished by the assessee are reproduced at para 3.3.3 of the assessment order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

Manohar, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 564/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.564/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manohar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ward – 3, Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605 014. [Pan:Awmpm5480E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit For Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT for Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

short] and in response, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer issued 3 notices under section 142(1) of the Act and 4 notices show-causing the assessee why the cash deposit be added to the total income of the assessee, which is evident ... assessment order, which clearly shows that there was no compliance by the assessee in response to the notices issued under section 142(1), 148 of the Act and show-cause notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the best judgement assessment under

Tirumaiah Sunil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2017-18 Mr

Syed Irfan Gulab Jan Pasha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1095/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Syed Irfan Gulab Jan Pasha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1094/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Jain Brothers, Aram Nagar Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Income Tax Department, Civic Centre, New Delhi

ITA 5251/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2018-19 Jain Brothers, Vs. Nfac, New Delhi 7359, Aram Nagar, Civic Centre, New Delhi Delhi – 110 055 (Pan:- Aabfj1838Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Deepak Kumar Jain (Assessee) Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar Jain (Assessee)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt

Ansul Aggarwal & Co., New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4483/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Keshram, Village- Patwari vs. The ITO Ward- 5(2)(1), G Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2158/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2158/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Keshram Through Legal Heir Shri Sunder Singh, Village Patwari Bisrakh, Gatam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203207 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Bqgpk-1567-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(2)(1), Gatam Buddha Nagar, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 201303 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 10.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 53 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम