“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)

Altiux Innovations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1006/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1006 To 1008/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Altiux Innovations (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Pan: Aalca9069R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sai Sarikonda, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sarikonda, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 32Section 68

CASS for reason as mentioned above, notice under section 143(21, dated 29.06.2021 was duly issued and served. Subsequent thereto, statutory notices under section 142(1) were issued calling for details, submissions and explanations on the issue for which the case was selected for scrutiny. The notices issued

Sri. Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana, Chitradurga vs. ITO, Ward-1 Exemptions, Hubli

In the result, ground number 1 – 9 are allowed with above directions

ITA 2249/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriV. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Bank during demonetization period from 9 November 2016 to 30 December 2016. The learned Page 7 of 9 assessing officer issued notice under section 142 (1) of the act for explanation of sources of cash deposits. In paragraph number 5 of the assessment order there is a complete list ... that AO including a show cause notice issued on 28/11/2019 and further on 4/12/2019. Except on 3/10/2019, in response to notice issued under section 142 (1) of the income tax act, the assessee responded by letter dated 18/10/2019 requesting more time. Therefore, there was no compliance by assessee, excepting seeking

Sunil Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1213/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ITA No.- 1213/Del/2024 Amardeep IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL

Jamuna Shankar Sharma, Guna vs. ITO, Guna

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

ITA 45/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 250(6)

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

Muslim Alam, East Champaran vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.333/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Muslim Alam……………………………….……………....…....Appellant S/O Late Samid Miyan, H. No.34, Vill. Lachchmipur, Kaurihar, East Champaran, Bihar-845305. [Pan: Bakpa7419J] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…....…..…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.10.2023 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Was Engaged In Tailoring Work In The Village Of Raxaul. As The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Deposited A Cash Amounting To Rs.1,49,05,621/- Into Its Bank Account & Had Also Earned Interest Income Of Rs.4,06,892/- Thereupon. Since The Assessee Did Not File Income Tax Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Further A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued Requiring The Assessee

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

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

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result this appeal is also allowed for withdrawal and treated the same as dismissed

ITA 715/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result this appeal is also allowed for withdrawal and treated the same as dismissed

ITA 703/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Shri Mahrishi Dadhichi Chhatrawas Samiti, Kota vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Kota

The appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 1452/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “ SMC-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys

Shri Mahrishi Dadhichi Chhatrawas Samiti, Kota vs. ITO Ward Exepmtion Kota, Kota

The appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 1451/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

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

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1442/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 271FSection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Mehar Singh Through L/H Jaswant Singh Through L/H Kulvinder Singh, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Panchkula

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 128/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 128/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mehar Singh Ito, Through L/H Jaswant Singh, बनाम Ward 2, Through L/H Kulvinder Panchkula Vs. Singh, C/O M.K. Aggarwal, Sco 1, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Crups8268M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rishab Gupta, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Rishab Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Abdulmannan Mohammedkasam Bastawala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1843/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

account of unexplained expenditure and also initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 16.06.2019, 12.09.2019 and 12.11.2019. 4. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that assessee has deliberately ... willfully not complied with statutory notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 6. In case of Vedabai vs. Shantaram

Abdulmannan Mohammedkasam Bastawala, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1797/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

account of unexplained expenditure and also initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 16.06.2019, 12.09.2019 and 12.11.2019. 4. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that assessee has deliberately ... willfully not complied with statutory notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1797&1843/Ahd/2024 Abdulmannan Mohammedkasam Bastawala vs. ITO Asst.Years –2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3– 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty

Vinpack Agro Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ITO 4(1)(4) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 689/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee was considered but no return was filed in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 22.08.2017 calling certain necessary details for reopening assessment. The assessee failed to furnish the required details as observed by the Assessing Officer ... considered, however till 8th November, 2017 the assessee failed to furnish the details. Thereafter, once again the assessee was requested vide notice under Section 142(1) dated 08.11.2017 to provide details/clarification/explanation on specific query through e-mail or manually. In response to that the assessee filed reply without any necessary

Smt. Janakba Maheshdan Gadhvi, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 953/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

with prior approval of the PCIT and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.03.2017 was served upon the assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act alongwith Questionnaire was issued on 15.06.2017 and was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice ... book, bank book, coy of ITR, computation of total income, ledger account of share in agricultural income. The Assessing Officer vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 17.07.2017 asked the assessee to furnish complete details of agricultural income/procedure during the A.Y. 2011-12 and also agricultural land