“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)

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

investment of Rs.4,66,95,000/-, the ld. AO issued a notice under section 148. The ld. AO, thereafter issued three notices under section 142(1) to the assessee requesting him to submit copies of balance-sheet, profit & loss account, capital account, computation of income, audit report, bank statements highlighting

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

Shobha Yadav, Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Knp-W

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

ITA 278/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

issued to the assessee, requiring her to file her return of income. When no response was received from the assessee, notices under section 142(1) were issued to her and were sent to her email address shobhayadav987654@gmail.com and govingyadav3481@gmail.com. When these too failed to receive any response, letters were issued

Yunus Mahemud Patel, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 450/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Velachery

ITA 632/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 323/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai, Tamilnadu

ITA 322/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 321/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

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

ITA 1175/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA

Section 127Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Santoshkumar Gograj Adukia HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 4424/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4424/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 4424/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Gunomal Santumal Rochlani, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 4299/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Gunomal Santumal Rochlani Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), 48, Roshan Apartment, Netaji Road, Kalyan Vs. Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421004. Pan/Gir No. Ahppr0832B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija (Virtually Appeared) Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order, Without Appreciating(Disregarding) The Facts / Reasons For Which Appellant Had Requested For Adjournment. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(A)[Nfac] Has Failed In Appreciating That Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Merely On The Basis Of The Alleged Information Stated To Have Been Received Without Making Any Independent Enquiries. Gunomal Santumal Rochlani

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM Gunomal

Mairu Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3333/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev M. Bhagat, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM Mairu

Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt Ltd in Liquidation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

ITA 1581/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 33(5)Section 52Section 53

Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd-In Liquidation vs. DCIT account of accommodation entries of Rs.26,35,88,650/- dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, the notice under Section 142(1) dated 27.01.2023 was issued whereupon the assessee on 15.02.2023 replied that the company is under going the liquidation process and the Hon’ble NCLT

Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt Ltd-in Liquidation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

ITA 1580/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 33(5)Section 52Section 53

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jay Singh Shikshan Sansthan, Farrukhaad

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

ITA 3013/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 142(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL

Srg Custodians and Securities (India) Ltd., Guwahati vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

ITA 1460/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69C

issued by Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur which was delivered on the registered email Id of the assessee followed by notices under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire. Prior to that during the course of search operation under Section 132(4) of the Act dated 06.01.2021 at the premises

Sita Gupta, Jalaun vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1454/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69C

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Santosh Trust, New Delhi

ITA 1427/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 80G(5)(iv)

complete scrutiny through CASS and notice therefore, under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.09.2018 followed by questionnaire under Section 142(1) dated 17.10.2019. Pursuant to the said notice the assessee duly submitted the details as required. The assessee filed return of income reporting cash deposit