“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)

DCIT Circle, Hisar vs. Tirupati Matsup Private Limited, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3326/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 69CSection 73(5)

case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices under section 142(1) were issued which were complied with by the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee has made purchases from various parties and in order to examine

Alp Overseas Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 2356/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25/3, Anbrose House, Central Circle -20, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pin 1100 08 Pan No. Aaacg6366L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CA & Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 37(1)

Income-tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2019 and notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 04.09.2020, 15.12.2020, 30.12.2020, 04.02.2021, 11.02.2021, 26.02.2021 and 02.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee on its registered email

Shri Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 418/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.418/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni V. Acit – Circle – 2(1) 29-14-53A Cr Building, 1St Floor Prakasam Road M.G. Road, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abppb1613C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतत तितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

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

under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and served on the assessee. Since assessee did not respond another notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.07.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee failed to respond to the second notice. Subsequently, notices under ... section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 11.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 17.01.2022 along with questionnaire. The assessee submitted part response on 22.02.2022. Subsequently, a show-cause notice and the draft assessment order Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.418/VIZ/2024 Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni was issued to the assessee

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 665/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice uncer sect 22(4)/23(2) of the India Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. No. 01... dated 7 Vv’ *Have concealed the particulars of your Income or .............. furnished inaccurate particulars

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Vinod Bagai, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-5, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 536/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 533 To 536/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13,2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Vinod Bagai, Vs. The Ito, बनाम H.No. 87, Ward 5, Sector 7, Panchkula Panchkula, Haryana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Accpb1321K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Aman Parti. Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr & Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : .05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr.DR

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

Department that I had during the F.Y. 16-17 (demonetization period deposited cash in my bank accounts. 4. That thereafter, notices under section 142(1) were issued by the income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panchkula which were duly complied by me. During the course of the assessment proceedings

Vinod Bagai, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.-5, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 535/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr.DR

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

Vinod Bagai, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 5, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr.DR

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

Vinod Bagai, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 5, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 533/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr.DR

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

Dushyant Shantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 296/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Umedsingh Bhati, AR and

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

business premises of the assessee. A notice under section 143(2) was issued on 27.09.2018, followed by notices under section 142(1) dated 19.09.2019, 26.11.2019 and 06.12.2019 along with detailed questionnaires. Though the assessee submitted a partial reply on 19.10.2019, he failed to respond to subsequent notices, and no explanation

Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward - 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.39/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited...….……….Appellant Nawpara, Noapara B.O. Paschim Noapara, Nadia, 741255, W.B. [Pan: Aadap3765F] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Nadia…………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Ray, R.C. Halder & Trideep Nayak, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 24.01.2024 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’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 282 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Are Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Received Information Regarding Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee During The Period Of Demonetization I.E. From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016 Amounting To Rs.2,46,000/- & Rs.8,48,500/- Maintained With Nadia District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Ranaghat Branch, Nadia & Rs.2,19,500/-

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

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

Rebanti Paul Legal Heir of Animesh Paul, Habra, North Chabis Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2548/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 142(1)Section 69A

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

Dolphin Food Processing Pvt Ltd, Nehalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2413/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी "द"प

Ideal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1344/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप

Sapat International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 8(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1961/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) Sapat International Pvt. V/S. Circle 8(1)(1), Aayakar Ltd. बिधम Bhavan, Churchgate, 102/103, T.V. Industrial, Mumbai-400020 Estate, Behind Glaxo Lab, 248/A, S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Maharashtra- 400030 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs7337P Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Parag ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Punjabi Bagh Extension vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-44(6), New Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 958/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Vs Income-Tax Officer, House No.11, Street No.23, Ward-44(6), Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 026. Pan: Aiips0365E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Appellant Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 3Rd January, 2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Of The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(6), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Itr For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 04.11.2017 Declaring The Income At Rs.13,27,320/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reasons, ‘Abnormal Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period.’ Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 16.08.2018 Was Issued. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 02.05.2019 Containing A Detailed Questionnaire Was Issued. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 03.06.2019 Was Issued, But, The Assessee Did Not File The Reply. On The Basis Of The Information, The Ld. Ao Completed The Proceedings Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019 By Making An Addition Of Rs.1,08,40,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle) Allahabad, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/ALLD/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 20/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER