“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)

Rajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Piplag Nadiad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1395/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalrajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Matru Chhaya, Piplag Ward-5, Chokdi Petlad Road, Piplag, Nadiad. Nadiad-387255. [Pan :Ahppp4940 G]

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

file the return of income. Based on cash deposits made during the demonetization period, the case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices under Section 142(1) were issued, which remained uncompiled with. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 22.10.2019, determining total income

Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can Shree Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. A.O. also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section ... Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1682/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 602, Srithi Block, Chitra Avenue, Corporate Ward 4(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Afypm5382G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 68

under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on 09.08.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.01.2019 and subsequent reminder dated 28.02.2019 was also issued followed by another reminder dated 30.03.2019. Further, the Assessing Officer issued ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2019. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 272(1)(d) of the Act dated 30.07.2019 show-causing the assessee as to why penalty under section 272A(1

Honavar Agricultural Produce Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Honavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

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

ITA 81/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Bipin Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Vaishali

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

ITA 463/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.463/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bipin Kumar….……………………………. …………………....Appellant Patepur Paura Kartaha Vaishali Bihar 844117, Bihar-844117. [Pan: Bnepk5098Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Vaishali.…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18. However, The Assessee Failed To Furnish His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question Either U/S 139 On Or Before 31.03.2018 & Failed To Furnish Itr In Response To Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Later On, The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Has Deposited Total Cash Amounting To Rs.83,67,203/- In His Bank Account During The Demonetisation Period. As There Was No Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Treated The Entire Cash

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Noratan Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is technically dismissed

ITA 323/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarnoratan Lal Sharma, 35-A Nanupuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No.: Bcyps 6349P ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. Cit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Govind Jee, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1040/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69A

1 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Pandaveswar Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pandaveswar vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 287/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant

Income Tax Officer, Gangtok vs. Krishna Prasad, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed

ITA 1406/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Krishna Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Ashutosh Biswas, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1070/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

H. Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 629/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

respond is within the scheme of the Act and has no bearing on limitation. It was also pointed out that notices under section 142(1) issued earlier had been sent to the correct address and hence there was no basis to allege irregular service. In conclusion, the Assessing Officer submitted ... documents filed during the search proceedings including the Panchanama and sworn statements. The assessee points out that while earlier statutory notices under section 142(1) and notices of attachment under section 226 were properly sent to the correct address, the final assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices were suddenly