“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)

Vanaja, Tamil Nadu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Hosur, Hosur Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 1345/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1345/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mrs. Vanaja, The Ito, 43/B, Chandra Chudeswar Nagar, Ward-1, Hosur-636 701, Hosur. Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Acdpv 9863 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca [By Virtual] : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

P.V.S. Metal Mart, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1343/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1343/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Pvs Metal Mart, The Dcit, 434, Sathya Complex, Om Sakthi Central Circle-2, Koil Street, Nambiyur, Coimbatore. Gobichettipalayam, Erode-638 458. [Pan: Aamfp 7148 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.C. Ravikrishnan, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

Best Winners Insurance Services Private Limited, Salem vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Salem

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1334/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1334/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S. Best Winners Insurance – The Dcit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1), C1 First Floor, Salem. Thirumala Elite Apartment, Angammal Colony, Main Road, Salem-636 009. [Pan: Aaecb 3474 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam

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

Madhukar Sabu Jadhav, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

ITA 297/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2017-18 Madhukar

Manikarnike Yadu, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 276/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 156

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2010-11 Smt

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore

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

ITA 1679/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

M/S. Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1240/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Jasmine Kaur Bhatia, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 728/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 69A

before the time of hearing.” 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee was served a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (‘Act’) dated 11.12.2017 for filing her Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on the reasoning that

Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 1609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 13ASection 143(3)

complete” scrutiny. This followed the Assessing Officer's section 143(2) notice issued to the assessee on 23.09.2019 as well as section 142(1) show-cause notices from time to time. It would indeed be appropriate for us to make it clear that the learned departmental authorities had issued section ... exemption herein. 4. We now revert back to the assessee's scrutiny assessment in question. The Assessing Officer appears to have issued his section 142(1) notice dated 27.11.2020 seeking to disallow its section 13A exemption claim for the precise reason that it had not filed its return dated

Daido India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 5761/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

1 ITA No. 5761/Del/2018 Daido India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H

Gram Sewa Mandal, Allahabad vs. ITO Exemption- Ward (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 162/ALLD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)

I.T.A. No.162/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, “SMC”, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Khemraj Sinha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khemraj Sinha Proprietor: Jain Kirana Stores, Ganpat Chowk, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Bonps5758B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from ... questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties, considered the material available on record and facts and circumstances involved in the present case

Neelam Mandhani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 303/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.303/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neelam Mandhani D-27, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bgkpm2502A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Warlyani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 54FSection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Rupalkumar Kantilal Shah, Mandvi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 56/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rupalkumar Kantilal Shah Vs. Cit(A), Delhi Harihant Kt Shah Road, Sheth Wali Delhi – 110001 Street, Na Vapora, Mandvi - 370465 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoyps3626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 06.12.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section (U/S.) 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 27.11.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts In Not Considering The Regularity & Consistency Of Business Even Though The Same Has Been Acknowledged In The Order 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts In Not Considering The Evidence Furnished By Your Appellant During The Course Of The Proceedings. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A To Determine & Tax Income In The Hands Of Your Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Om Prakash Sha, Nalanda vs. ITO, Ward, 2(4), Biharsharif

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

ITA 87/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘Patna’ BENCH, PATNA (Through virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND

Vivid Colors Pvt. Ltd., Bihar, Patna vs. DCIT-Circle 2, Patna, Bihar

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

ITA 113/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Parna Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘Patna’ BENCH, PATNA 02. (Through virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Danda Nagendra Kumar, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 306/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras from the said affidavit are extracted as under:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय

Syed Irfan Hazari, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 305/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

filed his return of income, or furnished the requisite information, as was called for by the A.O. by issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. Considering 3 Syed Irfan Hazari the aforesaid factual position, the A.O. issued notice under Section

Kvc Infrastructures, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 266/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 124(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 249(3)Section 282Section 44A

unregistered email ID, violating Rule 127 and Section 282 of the Income- tax Act. 4. Failure to Consider Detailed Reply to Notice under Section 142(1): The AO ignored the appellant's response to the notice under Section 142(1), which included supporting documents and clarifications. 5. Invalid Invocation

Dhanalakshmi Textade India Pvt Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 233/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 270A