“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)

Prajyoth Kumar Adi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2077/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

return of income in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Also, the notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 01/08/2024 and 09/09/2024 were not complied with. Also, the show cause notices (SCN), dated 04/10/2024, 07/10/2024 and 07/11/2024 issued

Aneemoni Naga Raju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to file his return of income. Also, the notices issued by the AO under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 30/07/2024, 08/10/2024, as well as show cause notices (SCNs) were not complied by the assessee. 3. The AO based

Suresh Nammi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1620/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

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

Hyderabad amounting to Rs.4,36,500/-, but had not filed his return of income for the subject year. The AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 14/12/2017, 16/01/2018 and 23/09/2019 calling upon the assessee to file his return of income. However, as the assessee had neither ... filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act nor responded to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the AO was constrained to proceed and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act. 3. During

Manoj Rajaram Sharma, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8313/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmanoj Rajaram Ito - 42(3)(4), Sharma, Mumbai Office No. 615, 6Th Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C- Floor, Centura Square 41-43, Avenue 3, Near It Park, Sg Barve Videsh Bhavan, G Road, Thane, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 604. – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Bytps1944K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suryadev Yadav, Shri Karan Hariya & Shri Prashant Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 44A

dated 29.03.2024 was issued to the assessee requiring him to file return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices under section 142(1), show cause notice under section 144 and other communications were issued from time to time. 3. In response to the final show cause notice

Mahesh Prakash Bende, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

issued to the assessee requiring him to file the return of income. However, no compliance was made by the assessee. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) were issued calling for details. The case was transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Despite service ... having been duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. The learned AR reiterated that the assessee could not comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, as the same were not retrieved due to discontinuance of business and non-access to the registered email address

Deepanshu Srivastava, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 4064/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Deepanshu Srivastava, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 4063/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

ITO, Ward 21(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. M/S Retro Footwears Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3291/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Ito, Ward-21(1), M/S Retro Footwear Private Limited, Room No.220, C.R. Building, J-19, Udyog Nagar, I.P. Estate, Vs New Delhi-110041 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aadcr3787M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod Kumar, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Techpark Hotels Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Harbhol Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR

Section 148

bank account with State Bank of India during the F.Y. 2011-12. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued several notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2), but the assessee failed to provide a plausible justification or documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposits or the computation

Vineet Kumar, Dharamshala vs. Income Tax Officer, Dharmshala

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

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

assessee. Based on such information, the case was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) were issued from time to time. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation along with supporting documentary evidences in respect ... complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act on the premise that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1). However, from the material placed on record and as also noted in the grounds of appeal, it emerges that the assessee had filed replies

Narendra Bansal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cirlce -12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6178/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2016-17 Narendra Bansal, Vs. Acit, Circle 12(2), A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi – 110 020 C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 2 [Pan: Ahdpb0964E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Arimilli Rama Krishna, West Godavari Dist vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

discernible from the record, the AO had issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act and under section 142(1) of the Act, both dated 02.12.2019, Page Nos. 13 and 14 of the APB. 6. During the course of the re-assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee ... similar manner as if he would have done in response to a return of income furnished under section 139 or under section 142(1) of the Act. 15. Although the Ld. Sr. DR had tried to impress upon us that for framing of assessment pursuant to the return of income

Abdul Salam Shaik, Piler vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1371/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

cash deposit and transaction in property and (ii) investment in immovable property. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) as well as under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) to the assessee. During the course of assessment

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

Rs.255,41,03,744. 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 year under consideration, the assessee earned interest income of Rs.45 lakh on investments

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

A K Enterprises, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6587/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Ild Millennium Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Civic Center, Delhi

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

ITA 4735/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Ambe Marble, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ambe Marble Ito Ward 36(1) Delhi New C/O B-50 Lgf South Vs Delhi Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi Pan No. Abbfa5852G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Path Sansta Mary., Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 192/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pathsansta Mary Ward-1(1), Kolhapur Kodoli, At Post Kodoli, Tal. Panhala, Kolhapur-416114 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat4234H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.192/PUN/2026