“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)

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The Salsette Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6299/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Salsette Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., The Bandra Gymkhana 42, St. Andrew Road Bandra (W), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400050 Pan : Aaaat0195N V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-23(3), ……………… Respondent 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(3) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 2,76,03,114/- under section

Arunkumar Ramchand Poptani, Ulhasnagar, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 6296/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailarunkumar Ramchand Poptani, 302, Manwani Mension Gaol Maidan, Ulhasnagar, Thane - 421001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaxpp8396B V/S Ito, Ward - 2(1), Mohan Plaza, ……………… Respondent Kalyan

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee did not file any return in response to the aforesaid notice and also did not comply with the statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on the basis of the material available on record under section 144 of the Act. Vide

Mangilal Datla, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara, Banswara

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL

Shanker Narayan Agarwal, Jodhpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him & Also Before Assessing Authority In Regard To Making Addition Of Rs. 11,78,500/- As Unexplained Money. 2. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Does Not Prove That Amount Previously Withdrawn From Bank Neither Invested Or Used By Assessee As Such The Order Under Appeal Is Bad In Law Thus Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Not Follow The Various Decision Of Itat Submitted Before Both Of Them & Decision Taken Contrary To Such Decision Is Bad In Law & Bad In Facts. 4. That Your Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend & Alter Any Of Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

issued on 21.09.2018 and the issue identified for examination as per Notice was “Cash Deposit during demonetization period”. Notices under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued from time to time requiring the assessee to furnish relevant details/information during the assessment proceedings Online electronically 3 Shanker Narayan

Manish Sharma, Kota vs. JCIT, Central Circle, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,260/-. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 20.09.2016 which was duly served. Notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 20.09.2016. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted relevant details/information which were considered. Upon consideration of the detailed information

Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

response, the assessee filed her return in the month of January, 2022, which was required to be filed by 30.04.2021. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17.11.2021 and later on 22.12.2021 fixing the hearing on 05.01.2022 for submission of certain details, which was duly served ... Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 15.03.2022 to the assessee for not furnishing the details as required vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 17.03.2022 through faceless proceedings. The reply of the assessee was considered

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle-Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Satyajit Saha, Agartala

ITA 190/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68Section 69

been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning ... jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142(1). 2. In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court

Late Shri Suresh C Angadi Represented by Legal Heir Mrs Mangal Suresh Angadi, Belgavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Belagavi

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

ITA 67/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

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

Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 346/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

well as through speed post. Subsequently, the case was centralized with ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur u/s 127 of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 11/03/2021 along with a questionnaire, which was duly served upon the assessee through e-filing

Sachin Bhandari, Jaipur vs. Itd WD 6(4), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 354/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Neeru Arora, Chandigarh vs. Circle-1, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 60/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 53A

section 148 dated 28.07.2022 was issued after obtaining the necessary approval from the competent authority. In the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under section 142(1), along with questionnaires, were issued by the AO seeking specific details regarding the said transaction. 4. The AO noted that despite repeated opportunities

Adarsh Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 287/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adarsh Medical Hall Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-7(1) [Pan :Aagfa5186R] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri R.Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Amit Kumar Sen, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

absence of a causal link between the alleged stock discrepancy and any purported undisclosed sales. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Section 142(1): Despite some initial delays, the Appellant duly submitted responses on 02-11-2019 and 08-11-2019. The Ld. Assessing Officer (AO)s arbitrary

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 764/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

notice under section 148 of the Act, pending E-verification, the Assessing Officer treated the same as invalid. Against the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice under section 144 of the Act, there was no response from the assessee. According ... order, the main contention of the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that no notice under section 142(1) of the Act or show-cause notice received by the assessee and without any intimation, the ITO (NFAC) Delhi completed the assessment under section