← 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)

Mft Builders and Developers, Gulbarga Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1178/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153B

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

Mohammed Abdul Najeeb, Gulbarga, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary, Karnataka

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1176/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153B

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

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (As Sucessor to Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited Which in Turn Is Sucessor to Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4964/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 28Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ebaotech India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6359/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Authorities Below Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Company Of The Ebao Group Which Is Globally Diversified In Insurance Software Having Its Headquarters In Shanghai, China & The Operations Of The Group Are Located In Many Countries Including India, Australia, China, Malaysia, Japan & Singapore, With Extensive Coverage In Insurance Software & Technology.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFOREOM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. K K Ventura, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

ITA 5331/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 260Section 68

carried forward to the next year along with principal amount. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee firm was issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring to furnish the confirmation statement duly confirmed by the lender, copy of bank statement of lender evidencing ... next year along with principal. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the assessee firm was issued notices by the A.O. under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 requiring to furnish the confirmation statement duly confirmed by the lender, copy of bank statement of lender evidencing

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 23.11.2020. The Ld. AO completed the assessment on 22.01.2021 under section 143(3) r.w. section ... case of the assessee. 6.1 Elaborating the above contentions, the Ld. AR pointed out that in notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.11.2020 (copy at Paper Book page 1-2), the Ld. AO required the assessee to furnish documentary evidence in support of claim that the amount

Manoj Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 44(5), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklamanoj Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward 44(5) Rz-672, E/29, New Delhi Gali No. 27F, Sadh Nagar - 2, Palam Colony New Delhi – 110045 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anipg4878R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

year and cash deposit during demonetization period. Notices under Section 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 and 25.09.2018 followed by questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Act. As no compliance was made by the assessee notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to Yes Bank & ICICI

Sangeet Gupta, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satna

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer records in his order, that during the course of assessment, he issued notices under section 142(1), reminder letters, a show cause notice under section 144 and a final show cause notice, but the assessee did not respond to any of these

Jain Ware House, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Seoni

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2(24)(xviii)Section 250Section 69A

after following the necessary procedures issued a notice under section 148. However, the ld. AO records that despite issue of various notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) along with a show cause notice, the assessee did not make effective compliance to the queries raised by him. He pointed

Saroj Kumar Swain, Khorda vs. Income Tax Officer, Khorda Ward, Khorda

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

ITA 162/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 162/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Saroj Kumar Swain Vs Ito, Khurda Ward,Khurda At/P.O:- Banga, Kudiary, Delanga, Jatni, Khurda, 752050 Pan No. : Azlps 4330 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri, S.K. Agrawalla, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri, S.K. Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 69

submission that the assessee had not filed his return of income during the impugned assessment year. It was the submission that notice under section 142(1) of the Act had been issued to the assessee on 25.01.2018 and the assessee had filed his return and response to the notice issued ... under section 142(1) of the Act on 20.07.2019. It was the submission that when the assessment was done the return filed by the assessee was treated as invalid and the accounts of the assessee was 2 rejected and income of the assessee estimated at 8%. It was the further

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 337/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 336/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय

Paladugu Reshma, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.268/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Paladugu Reshma V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) D.No. 57-7-11 Income Tax Office New Postal Colony Cr Building, 1St Floor, Annex Kakatiya Clinic Road M.G.Road, Vijayawada Patamata, Vijayawada - 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amupp5831A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM“DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश

Income Tax Officer, W-2(1), Gvmc (Part), Visakhapatnam vs. Sathish Kumar Attada, Gvmc (Part), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 422/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.422/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Sathish Kumar Attada Infinity Tower, 2Nd Floor Flat No. 506, Tsr Nri County 2 Range-2, Sankaramatam Road Srinivasanagar, Yendada-530020 Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Akapa1392B] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

along with questionnaires were issued and served on the assessee. Assessee failed to respond to the notices and another notice under section 142(1) dated 24.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. Since assessee failed to respond to this notice as well, a show-cause notice under section

Shree Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

# आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण**,** इंदौर Ɋायपीठ**,** इंदौर **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE** ## **BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankaj Kumar Mittal, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायापीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा0 एस. सी. सीतांलक्ष्मी

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

array atitcia after, cage =aradis, wage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” A” JAIPUR So Wa. Ware, ae

Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah, Anand vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 990/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, CA
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 148 dated 27.03.2018 was duly served. The assessee, however, did not respond to the said notice nor to subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) on different dates. 3.2 On verification of bank information obtained under section 133(6), it was found that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating

Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 823/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 1St Floor, Tax Planning House Vejalpur Above Usmanpura Underbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380013. Pan : Acwps 4622 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mukesh Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद