“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)

Raigaon Sugar and Power Limited, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Cir-Satara, Satara

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3177/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Raigaon Sugar and Power Limited, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Cir-Satara, Satara

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3176/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Shaikh Naim Gulab Shaikh, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 3076/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3076/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Naim Gulab Shaikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of Sk. Gulab Sk. Gamir Ward-2(1), Jalgaon Kela Suppliers, 2725, Chandni Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Savda-425502 Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan : Basps5568N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai vs. Taj Mohamed, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69A

income of 2,66,690/-. The AO, after issuing ITA Nos.2872 & 2873/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18 & 2020-21) Taj Mohamed. :: 7 :: multiple notices under Section 142(1) and 133(6), observed that the assessee failed to produce credible documentary evidence supporting his claim that the bank transactions were related to genuine

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Taj Mohamed, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2872/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69A

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

ITA 3261/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3261/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, No. 2 Dare House, Chennai G.P.O, Parrys, Chennai-600001. V. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pcit, Chennai Room No 301, 3Rd Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से//Assessee By प्रत्योंकों की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, R, Advocate : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.11.2025 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ("The Act") For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 263Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायापीठ, चेन्नई. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Pooja Vinod Wadhwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, -2, Kalyan

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

ITA 806/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpooja Vinod Wadhwani, 105, Tulip Building, May Flower, Ambernath, Maharashtra - 421501 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaqpw2153G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, ……………… Respondent Kalyan (W) - 421301

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

file her return of income even in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued, and the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in her bank account maintained with the State Bank ... cash deposits in the year under consideration. However, the assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices issued and served under section 142(1) of the Act. 4. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the assessee made the following response: – 3 “I have not filed return of Assessment Year

Cherie Tandon Saldahna, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

have been spotted, the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee purchased immovable property in Mumbai

Rajesh Tyagi, Ambah vs. ITO Ward 1, Morena

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

ITA 618/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020

Rajav Jain, Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ashoknagar, Ashoknagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 457/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajav Jain V Ito, Ward No. 18, Purana Bazar, Ashok Nagar Ashok Nagar M.P. – 473 331 M.P. – 473 331 Pan : Anmpj1439M (Appellant)(Respondent)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12

Vimla Devi Bhattar, Phalodi vs. ITO, Ward, Phalodi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevimla Devi Bhattar Ito, Ward E-51, Industrial Area Khichan Phalodi - 342301 (Phalodi) Jodhpur - 342301 Pan No. Amjpb 6652 J Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Dundappa Ishwarappa Gadvi, Panaji vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1) Panaji, Panaji

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

ITA 83/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.83/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18) Dundappa Ishwarappa Gadvi, Vs Acit Circle (1), Behind Mandovi Hotel, Aaykar Bhavan, . Opp;Delhi Darbar, Edc, Patto, M.G.Road, Panjim Panjim-403001, Goa-403001. Goa. Pan .No. Aabfd1723G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Vinesh Pikale.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Unexplained Cash Credits U/Sec68 Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Documentary Evidences Filed & Denied Request Of Virtual Hearing Through Video Conferencing Under The Faceless Appeal Scheme.

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

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

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

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 80P(2)(a)

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

Sunil Kumar Baheti, Surat vs. PCIT (Central), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a specific notice under section 142(1) dated 21.09.2022 calling upon the assessee to explain the alleged cash payment of Rs.27,87,450/- for purchase of shop No. 547. The assessee ... perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a specific notice under section 142(1) calling upon the assessee to explain the alleged cash investment of Rs.27,87,450/. The assessee categorically denied having purchased any shop or having

Ashokkumar Mohanlal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2383/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144

claimed a sum of Rs. 86,63,374/- under the head Current Liabilities and Provisions as sundry creditors. The AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to explain the credits of Rs. 86,63,374/-. Out of the aforesaid credits, the appellant could

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal, Ghodasar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1880/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1880/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Roopsingh Bhupal Singh बनाम/ Ward-3(2)(1) Goyal V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 49, Vishala Park Nr. Hariom Nagar Ghodasar Ahmedabad – 380 050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afxpg 1573 Q (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/112025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/08/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue, In This Appeal, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.2,48,62,500/- Ito Vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Suchit Dilip Mane, Sangali vs. ITO Ward-1, Sangali

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

ITA 2601/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL