“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)

Rajesh, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 103/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

ITA No.103/Del/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “A”:NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI

Vishan Gunna, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi, Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3605/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Vishan Gunna, Vs Acit, Plot No.550, House No.- Circle-Int.Tex 1(3)(1), 8-3-293/83/J-Iii, Road New Delhi. No.92, Jubilee Hills, Telangana-500033. Pan-Bmypg5434R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.Mohan Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

ITA No.3605/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Deepak Auto Sales Kunda Pratapgarh, Pratapgarh vs. Income Tax Officer Pratapgarh, Pratapgarh

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

ITA 69/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

I.T.A. No.69/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

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

ITA 260/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.257/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.259/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.260/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur At/Po/Ps: Ainthapali, Dist : Sambalpur-768004 Pan No. :Abvpv 8418 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh P.K.Mishra & Baidyanath Behera, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra & Baidyanath Behera, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

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

ITA 259/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra & Baidyanath Behera, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

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

ITA 257/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra & Baidyanath Behera, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

Arcpl Developers Private Limited, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 731/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 156A(1)Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs. Bhaskar Chauhan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh

Bhaskar Chouhan, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

ITA 533/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डॉ. एस.सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Poonam Sen, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range 1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 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)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee through his mother-in-law. No return was filed in response to this notice under section 148. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) was issued, which was also not complied with. Thereafter, the ITO-2(1) transferred the case to ITO-1(3), Lucknow informing the ITO that ... jurisdiction of the case lay with ITO-1(3), Lucknow. Therefore, on 11.01.2016, the ITO-1(3), Lucknow issued a notice under section 142(1) fixing the date of hearing. In response, Sh. Alok Gupta, C.A. appeared before the ld. AO and filed a power of attorney. He submitted that

Incometax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Haresh Dayashankar Shrivastav, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 684/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year : 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, Haresh Dayashankar Shrivastav, Vs Ward 3(3)(1), 35, Swetanjali Society, Nr. Ahmedabad Hasubhai Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan : Bbpps 5719 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arsh Shaikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri Arsh Shaikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

held as under:- “7. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that before service of notice under section 142(1) Shri Keshavlal Somnath Panchal had already expired. His legal heirs did not file return for this assessment year. Therefore, the right course ... Somnath Panchal, then demand cannot be recovered. Other L/Rs. if any would take an objection that they have not served any notice under section 142(1) or under section 148 etc. Therefore, procedure followed by the AO in the present case is patently illegal. Service of notice upon a dead

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Race Course vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol

ITA 632/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) on 16.08.2017 and subsequently issued notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires. 3. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 29.12.2018, determining the total ... Officer, vide penalty order dated 18.12.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice under section 142(1). The additions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following: i. Software expenditure of Rs.31,96,245/- ii. Testing fees of Rs.50

Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 623/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Manjira Banerjee, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2387/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

ITO, Siliguri vs. Shubhasish Dey, Siliguri

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1163/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3229/Mum/2023

Girish Narpatchand Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1233/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeegirish Narpatchand Kanungo Vs Income-Tax Officer, 19(1)(3), 2Nd Flat No.3, Floor, 5, Mumbai, 2Nd Ramnivas Building, Piramal Chamber, Parel Mumbai- Parsiwada Lane, Opp. V.P. 400012 Road, Police Station, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aoapk9201M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Acc Mineral Resources Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2687/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Acc Minerals Resources Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income 121, Cement House, Maharshi Karve Tax, Mumbai – 400 001. Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaact2214N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually Appear) Respondent By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -1 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, Impugned Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Passed By Pcit-1, Mumbai Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Pcit-1, Mumbai Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 20.04.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact That The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Has Already Gone Through Issue

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ACC

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Amethi vs. Itd, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 142(1)Section 144

I.T.A. No.170/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH “SMC”, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

array aiteta aire iy rarauis, AGN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,B” JAIPUR Sb Wa. Moat =a