“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)

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 487/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-2015 to 2016-2017) Shree Mangalam Aluminium IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 486/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-2015 to 2016-2017) Shree Mangalam Aluminium IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 22/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 21/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 20/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm**

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

# **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'PATNA ' BENCH , PATNA** ## **BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 19/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 18/PAT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/PAT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Suresh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panchkula

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

under Section 148 dated 16.03.2018, as the assessee had not filed his return of income within the statutory period. Despite multiple notices under Section 142(1) and a show-cause notice under Section 144, the assessee failed to respond or furnish details. Consequently, the AO framed an ex-parte assessment

Suresh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Panchkula

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1148/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Unique Retreads Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 785/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 144Section 147Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Naresh Amarnath Barot, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Naresh Amarnath Barot Ito, Ward-3(3)(3) C/O. Neela J. Rao Vs. Ahmedabad. 5, Ratanadeep Bungalow Nr.Sun-In Step Club Thaltej Ahmedabad 380054. Pan : Aaxpb 0044 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 14.02.2025, Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The A.Y. 2017–18, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.19,59,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A On Account Of Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period As Per The Order Dated 09.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that all relevant documents were in fact submitted during the assessment proceedings in response to notices under section 142(1), including the letter dated 04.09.2019 and detailed reply dated 14.11.2019. He drew attention to copies of these replies placed in the paper book, showing specific

Sachinkumar Premanandbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 596/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Sachinkumar Premanandbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1 Nr.Old Post Office Vs. Anand. Bhalej Anand Umreth, Gujarat Pan : Auhpp 8057 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 54

Gain, on the ground that no exemption under section 54 was claimed and that the income had escaped assessment. Various statutory notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued, and in the absence of compliance, assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147, making an addition

Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-5), Anand

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 595/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi Ito, Ward-1 50/51, Sabnam Society Vs. Anand. Nr. New Water Tank Anand, Gujarat. Pan : Awppk 5536 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”], For A.Y. 2011–12, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, In Respect Of Cash Deposits In Her Savings Bank Account Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

issued on 27.03.2018. The assessee filed return on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,74,244/-. The AO issued notices under sections 142(1) and 133(6), and after obtaining bank statements, observed that cash was deposited on various dates. The assessee’s response to the show cause notice dated

Yogesh Hargovindbhai Joshi L/H of Bhavnaben Y. Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Vice- & Ms.Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Yogesh Hargovindbhai Joshi Vs. The Ito, Ward-6(1)(1) L/H. Of Bhavnaben Y. Joshi Ahmedabad. 8, Manav Pursusharth Society Opp: Hirabhai Tower Uttamnagar, Maninagar Pan : Adupj 2208 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 129Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

dead assessee. But despite that the notices were issued on 11.9.2019 under section 143(2) of the Act and notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 28.11.2019 were in the name of the dead-person. In fact, the assessment order was also passed in the name

Chirag Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward -3(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1846/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Mayankkumar Rameshchandra Bhatt, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1284/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

accordingly, the AO proceeded to treat the assessee as a non-filer. 2.2 During reassessment proceedings, the AO issued multiple notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaires. As per the order, the assessee either did not comply or furnished inadequate replies, leading to best judgment assessment under section

Safari Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, IT(SS)A No

ITA 1016/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleit(Ss)A No. 29/Ahd/2024 & Ita No. 1014/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R. &

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 37Section 43CSection 68Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Riddhi Siddhi Estate Creator LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, IT(SS)A No

ITA 1014/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleit(Ss)A No. 29/Ahd/2024 & Ita No. 1014/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R. &

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 37Section 43CSection 68Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY