“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)

Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh, Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Sri Sai Enterprises, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 10/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the CIT(A), the impugned order so passed by the CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee till the assessee received the copy of the said order. The Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee immediately approached another Counsel for the legal remedy against the impugned order and in that process, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR has submitted that since the Counsel authorized by the assessee to represent before the CIT(A) has not responded to the notices issued by

Section 144Section 69A

1 आयर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘बी’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 603/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram, Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 602/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 601/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Ayaz Ahmed, West Bengal vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2026/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2026/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ayaz Ahmed,…………………………….……..……Appellant 25/1/1A, Darga Road, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adcpa3744N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-32(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri R. Chatterjee, A.R. & Firoz Uddin, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 20, 2025 O R D E R

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

return within the due time. But the assessee did not submit fresh return in response to notice under section 148. Accordingly notice under section 142(1) alongwith list of requisition dated 30.11.2019 was served on the assessee asking him to produce the relevant documents. However, there was no compliance from

Kakdweep Union Coop Largesized Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited., South 24 Pgs vs. I.T.O., Ward - 26(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1854/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(ii)Section 144

year 2017-18 during the period of demonetization in West Bengal State Cooperative Bank Limited, Kakdwip Branch, South 24-Parganas. Accordingly notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 25.11.2017. The assessee was asked to submit the true and correct return of income before ... assesaese did not file the return of income. Again, the assessee-Society received a notice under section 142(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.05.2019. Getting no response from the side of assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 311/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

demonetization period as well as during demonetization period totaling to ₹.3,88,93,360/-. Despite various notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to file the return of income as well as to explain the source for the cash deposits made

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

ACIT-16.3, Mumbai vs. Vipin Kumar Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 652/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriK.Shivram/Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

given to the assessee by issuing a show-cause notice on 23/09/2022, and a video conference was conducted on 27/09/2022? Notices under section 142(1) dated 01/11/2021 and 25/08/2022 were also issued to the assessee, and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was specifically asked to provide details

Godrej Agrovet Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2223/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailgodrej Agrovet Limited, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Mumbai, Mumbai – 400079 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan – Aaacg0617Q V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -6, Room No.51, 5Th Floor, ……………. Respondent Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Shri Jeet Kamdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit - Dr

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 32Section 35C

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. After considering the submissions of the assessee in response to the statutory notices issued during the assessment 3 ITA No.2223 ... inter-alia, for examining the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. In this regard, the AO issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 06/03/2020, forming part of the paper book from pages 5-11, inter-alia seeking the details of investments and claim

Dongkuk Steel India Private Limited, Greater Noida vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Prakash, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-43(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramuzaffar Nagar Vs. National Faceless Appeal Development Authority Centre (Nfac) C/O C.S. Anand, Delhi Advocate, 104 Pankaj Tower, 10 Lsc, Savita Vihar, Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaalm0437D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 12ASection 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

process of assessment by mentioning the issuance of notice under Section 141(1) dated 12.05.2016 followed by further notice dated 15.06.2016 under Section 142(1) of the Act; neither he has mentioned that the initial notice under Section 143(2) dated 31.08.2015 was issued by the ITO, Ward 2(1

M/S. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 725/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘DB’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Rahul Tyagi, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rahul Tyagi Golden Homes 13, New Vip Club, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aitpt6198H

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 124(1)Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

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

Shree Karni Education Trust, Jam Khambhalia vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2, Rajkot

ITA 208/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.208/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karni Education Trust Ito Exemption Ward- 2. Vs. Little Star School, Bunglavadi, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course, Shreeji Park, Near Telephone Ring Road, Income Tax Exchange, Jamkhambhalia, Exemption Ward-2, Devbhumi Dwarka - 361305 Rajkot - 360001

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Gohil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144oSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं

Ujwala Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Gannavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, ITA.No.314/VIZ

ITA 314/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80ASection 80P

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Ujwala Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift and Credit Society, Gannavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, ITA.No.314/VIZ

ITA 313/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80ASection 80P

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Piyush Fulchand Shah, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 68

case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 24.09.2018. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.09.2019, 02.12.2019 and 20.12.2019a were issued and served upon the assessee. As per the information available with the Income

Vishal Vasudevbhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 910/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.910/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishal Vasudevbhai Modi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 128/3, Golwad Ward-1(3)(5) V/S. Ratanpole, Kalupur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabaed – 380 0015 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Anopm 0228 K (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 173Section 69A

based on information that the assessee had deposited substantial cash in bank accounts during the demonetization period. The AO issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 21/12/2017, followed by subsequent notices on 19/06/2019, 05/08/2019, and 26/11/2019, seeking an explanation for the deposits. However, the assessee failed