← All Phrases

“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, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raj Goenka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncq-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2683/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2683/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, The Income Tax Officer, 84, Tagore Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Sivanandha Colony, Coimbatore Coimbatore -641 012. Pan: Adcpj 7575Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(11)Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

intangible assets during the year. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to justify the allowability of depreciation on goodwill vide notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that since the business segment was acquired on a slump sale basis, it had obtained

Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

interests of the Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In this regard, the AO issued various notices under section 142(1), including a detailed notice dated 21.09.2022 wherein he called for details with reference to dividend income amounting

Shri Mohd Amin Pampori, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 265/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohd Amin Pampori, Ito, Khonmoh V Ward 2, Srinagar Ut J & K S Srinagar 190001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Czepp7634Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing

For Appellant: Sh. Ubaid Nazir, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘DB’ AMRITSAR

Late Shri Anand Alias Vishwanath Mamani, Through His Legal Heir Smt. Ratna Anand Mamani, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Belagavi, Belagavi

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

ITA 352/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.352/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Late Shri Anand Alias Vs Ito-Ward-1, Vishwanath Mamani Through Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . His Legal Heir Smt.Ratna Civil Hospital Road Anand Mamani, Belagavi-590001. 3138/3, Ramapur Site, Karnataka. Saundatti, Belagavi-591126, Karnataka. Pan,No.Avhpm6615P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Sri.Shivananad Halbhavi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Under Section 68 Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-18 On 05.08.2017 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.11,93,580/- & The Case

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.352/PAN/2025

Jagdish Kumar Yadav, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.593/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jagdish Kumar Yadav Near Boudh Vihar Near To S.V Public School, Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aakpy0660J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

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

Arvind Kumar Mishra, Jamshedpur vs. ITO 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.229/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Kumar Mishra… ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant 22/20, Mishra Niwas, Kharangajhar, Near Hanumanmandir Road Telco, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831004. [Pan: Agdpm2983R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)…………………...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 04, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

return of income declaring total income of ₹2,34,920 from business, with gross receipts of ₹1,06,82,530. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessment was completed I.T.A. No.229/Ran/2024 Arvind Kumar Mishra under section 147 read with section 144B

Income Tax Officer, Siwan vs. Ghanshyam Dwivedi, Hathuwa Gopalganj

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

ITA 503/PAT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI

Qaisar Jan, Srinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

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

ITA 1777/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Iqbal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

merits but the Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the ground no 2 to 12 (ANNEXURE ATTACHED). 5. That the notice issued under Section 142(1) and assessment order passed under Section 144 are illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction as no notice under section 142(1) was served

Prathmesh Construction, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 2 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1814/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT (virtual)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

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

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 124(3)(a)Section 127(2)Section 129Section 143(2)

jurisdiction over the Assessee. On 21st July, 2015, Respondent No. 1, who is the AO of the Petitioner, issued notice under section 142(1) for furnishing the details of the Assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14. 4. On 27th July, 2015, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent No. 1

Jithender Reddy Polu, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1493/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

Polu vs. ITO accounts during the demonetization period, i.e., 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016, but had not filed his return of income, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 08/03/2018 calling upon him to file his return of income in compliance thereto. However, the assessee failed to file ... return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 07/05/2019 calling for certain information, in compliance the assessee vide his reply filed on 30/05/2019 submitted that he is a Kisan (farmer) deriving income only from agricultural operations

Ba Continuum India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 368/HYD/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

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

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

issued without providing opportunity to the Appellant to file its objections against the reasons for reopening the assessment; d) Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued without issuing the notice under section 143(2) of the Act and the reasons for reopening the assessment; e) Reference

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

Accordingly, ITA No. 2763/Kol/2025 is allowed for

ITA 2798/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

regulating agricultural marketing activities. The assessee did not file return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1). Due to non-compliance, the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144, after reopening under section 147. The assessee contended that its income

Sri Jssdj Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr.K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271FSection 272A(2)(e)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

C-2497 Patchur Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2707/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.G. Goudhaman, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1664/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, and the grounds raised by the assessee by way of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules are partly allowed

ITA 1658/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Southern Enterprises, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 22, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक