“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)

Raj Kumar Sirwani, Mandla vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandla Ward, Mandla

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

ITA 37/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Sirwani V. Income Tax Officer, Pamnani Chowk, Subhash Mandla Ward, Madhya Pradesh- Income Office, Mandla, 481661. Madhya Pradesh-481661. Pan:Ausps7713E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

M/S Asit Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 177/JAB/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2005-06 M/S Asit Dixit, Kartik Hotel, Near Vs. The Ito, Naudra Bridge, Jabalpur, M.P. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur Pan:Ggkps4130P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.6.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.09.2024 Wherein The Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 254/147/144 Of The Income Tax Act By The Assessing Officer On 27.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under: - “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Case The Addition Made Is Patently Wrong & Unwarranted As The Ao Has Not Followed The Order Of Hon’Ble Itat Bench Jabalpur For Verification Of Capital Introduced Of Rs. 37,00,000/- By Late Santosh Kumar Jaiswal. Notice Issued By Cit(A) For Fixing The Case For Hearing Are Not Seen As All Are Received In The Spam Folder & Due To Which The Notices Sent Through Mail Were Not Seen By The Assessee & The Reply Before The Cit (A) Could Not Been Submitted & The Ex-Party Order Was Passed & Appeal Was Dismissed. It Is Requested Kindly Delete The Addition Made By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 184(5)Section 250Section 254

furnish any reply to the satisfaction of the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO issued a show cause notice alongwith notice under section 142(1) on 20.03.2023, in response to which the assessee submitted a reply, the details of which are reproduced in the assessment order. After considering the same

Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Jerath vs. Incometax Officer Ward, Narsinghpur

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

ITA 151/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

The Singhbhum District Central Cooperative Bank, Chaibasa vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.177/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Singhbhum District Central Cooperative Bank, Chaibasa...……….……Appellant Represented By Jsbs, Madhubazar, Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aaajt2036K] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi……….............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Sr. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 292BSection 36(1)(vi)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI” BENCH, RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Anbhao Parkash S/O Darshan Lal, Village Veere Wala Kalan, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Faridkot, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 1, Faridkaot

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

ITA 630/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Smt Vandana Sameer Majali, Belgavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Belgavi

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

ITA 14/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.14/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12 ) Smt Vandana Sameer Majali, Vs Ito-Ward-1(2), H.No.189/B1/A, Civil Hospital Road, . Shukrawar Peth, Belagavi-590001. Tilakwadi, Karnataka. Belagavi-590006, . Karnataka. . Pan .No. Apupm1202K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)

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

ACIT, Allahabad vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013, A.Y. 2010-11 1 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013, A.Y. 2010-11 1 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Anand Foods, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 239/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 239/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

Tapas Kumar Chanda, Jajpur Town vs. Income Tax Officer, Jajpur Road

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

ITA 264/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tapas Tapas Kumar Kumar Chanda, Chanda, M/S M/S Vs. Ito, Ward Jajpur, Jajpur Ito, Ward Jajpur, Jajpur Satyanarayan Satyanarayan Jewellwers Jew Garipur, Durga Cinema Road, Garipur, Durga Cinema Road, Jajpur, Town, Jajpur 755001 Jajpur, Town, Jajpur 755001 Pan/Gir No. Alrpc 1318 B Alrpc 1318 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Digant Das, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/202 /2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Digant Das, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC

Divya Darshan Enterprise, Junagadh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 150/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 150/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Divya Darshan Enterprise Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Block No. 7/8, Meera Nagar, Opp. Circle – 1(1), Rajkot Shashikunj, Gandhipar, B/H. Sardarbaug, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Junagadh – 362001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd5111A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 69A

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

Bhikhalal Dayalal Paun, Rajkot vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot.

The appeal is dismissed”

ITA 957/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhikhalal Dayalal Paun Vs. The Acit , Circle– 2(1), 2- Patel Park, Opp. Bhartiya School, Nr. Rajkot - 360003 Satellite Chowk, Pedak Road, Rajkot – 360003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiapp6506A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta, Rajkot vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 422/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

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

Soham Papers Private Limited, Morbi vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 371/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

stock, which were examined by the assessing officer, as it is evident that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, asking the questions in respect of excess stock/ shortage of stock.Therefore, having examined the details and documents submitted by the assessee ... that no doubt the working of excess stock, was submitted by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, in response to the notice, issuedunder section 142(1) of the Act, however, the assessee has failed to explain the source of such excess stock. Therefore, Ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction