“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)

Tanaji Parilal Gawade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1589/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80C

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

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed for

ITA 418/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.418/Pun/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Springer Nature Technology & Publishing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Upper Ground Tower 8, Magarpatta City, Pune-411013. Pan: Aaccc8853E Appellant/ Assessee V The Assistant S Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement | 10/02/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] For

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250

total income of Rs.3,61,10,090/-. The Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1) were duly served on the Assessee. As per the Assessment Order, the assessee company was incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 on 25/08/2006

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited (As Successor of Nr Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. DR

Section 112Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 50

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 assessment proceedings, upon perusal of the profit and loss account and computation of income, it was observed that

Arvind Pratap Singh, Fatehgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

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

ITA 400/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Arvind Pratap Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/65, Bazariya Aliganj, Ward-4(2)(1), Fatehgarh, Up Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bnlps7513K Assessee By : Shri C. S. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(b)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Shiv Dutt Lohiya, Agra vs. CIT Appeal, Agra

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 394/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty under section 271(1)(b) on the ground that the assessee had failed to comply not only the Assessing Officer’s section 142(1) notice(s) dated 15th, 25th and 31st December, 2021, but also no explanation had come during penalty proceedings as well ... considered view in this factual backdrop that the above stated section 142(1) notices had admittedly been sent to the assessee during Covid Pandemic Outbreak involving various lockdowns and restrictions and, therefore, his non-cooperation during the course of hearing scrutiny could indeed taken as on account of circumstances beyond

Shiv Dutt Lohiya, Agra vs. CIT Appeal, Agra

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 393/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Taruna Vatssa, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

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

ITA 317/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

allegedly issued on 16/03/2020, required the appellant to comply within 30 days from the date of service. Subsequently, various notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with a questionnaire, were also issued. However, the appellant did not receive them, as the notices were not correctly

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Aligarh vs. ITO., Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18

Kushal Prasad Sahu, Bilaspur vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 15/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 140ASection 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

Kushal Prasad Sahu, Bilaspur vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 14/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 140ASection 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. Ms Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Shankar Prasad, Nalanda vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.04/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Prasad…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant S/O Yogendra Prasad, Vill-Asthawan, P.O – Asthawan, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Bihar-803107. [Pan: Avnpp3389B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.11.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,37,13,000/- From Current Account Maintained With Canara Bank During F.Y 2017-18 & The Assessee Did Not File Any Itr. Therefore, The Assessing Officer After Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Issued Notice U/S 147 R.W.S 148A Of The Act Through Email. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed His Return After A

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Ranjay Kumar Diwakar, Nawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.227/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjay Kumar Diwakar.………………………………………..………….……Appellant M/S Nidhi Pharma, Purani Jail Road, Nawada, Bihar-805110. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif.……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 12.09.2023 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, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling The Assessee To Submit True & Correct Return Of Income In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18 And

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Shree Hari Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 263

having been examined during assessment proceedings, placed at PB Page No.617, which is the copy of the notice issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act dated 01.03.2021 during assessment proceedings, asking the assessee to give details of parties to whom the rent of Rs.25

Bhanumati Michael Scribe, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Intl.Taxation-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 69A

amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 09.03.2018 calling upon the assessee to prepare true and correct return of income in respect

Shree Balaji Realty, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, appeals for

ITA 877/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

Shree Balaji Realty, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, appeals for

ITA 876/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

Shree Balaji Realty, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

ITA 875/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kharnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

Abishek Kumar, Vadapalani vs. ITO, Non Corporate, Ward 19(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai

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

ITA 2700/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2700/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abishek Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #32, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Vadapalani Non Corporate Ward 19(3), S.O., Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. Chennai. [Pan:Aaepa3652L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pawan Chakrapani, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 13 Grounds In This Appeal & Mainly Challenged The Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

deposited cash amounting to ₹.1,43,99,120/- in his bank accounts during the relevant assessment year. In response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished reply and the contents are reproduced in page 3 of the assessment order. However, the Assessing Officer rejected

Gautam Surendra Jaggi, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 27(1)-Vashi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5545/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE