“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)

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

alleged income escapement. 4. Ex-Parte Assessment without Adequate Opportunity: The assessment was completed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1), which were not properly served. The assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to respond, resulting in a one-sided assessment. 5. Appellant company ... Provident Fund of ` 21,04,804, was standing payable as on the date of audit. Therefore, in the questionnaire issued under section 142(1) dated 16/12/2021, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the assessee and requested to file relevant details, documents and information to substantiate its case. However, the assessee

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. Dcitacit Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a consideration of ` 1,19,79,000. Thereafter, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act seeking certain details and documents from the assessee, in response to which the Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar A.Y. 2016–17 assessee furnished

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessee in his return of 3 Yeshwant Pandurangji Ashtankar income for the year under consideration. Thereafter, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act seeking certain details and documents from the assessee, but the assessee chose not to respond to the notice of the Jurisdictional

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Debabrata Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2095/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debabrata Paul……….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 5, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Kolkata – 700004. [Pan: Aeypp0909B] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,83,955/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Agricultural Income Claimed By The Assessee. A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response To That Notice, The Assessee Submitted His Reply Before The Assessing Officer. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That Rs.44,80,000/- Was Received By The Assessee Which Was Claimed As Exempt Income Purportedly From Sale Of The Agricultural Land. The Assessing Officer However Treated This Amount As

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 50C(2)

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

Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd., Balurghat, South Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Balurghat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2081/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd…………………………..………Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aagas8001C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Balurghat…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Filer Of Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2018-19. It Was Found That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,57,66,762/- In The Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. During The Financial Year 2017- 18. Since, The Source Of The Deposit Remained Unexplained, The Department Reopned The Case Of The Assessee By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed Its Return

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Ramani Cars Private Ltd, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Orporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed statistical

ITA 604/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

same. Pursuant to the petitioner filing the return of income for assessment year 2022-23, notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the I-T Act). Such notices were replied to by the petitioner. This was followed ... respondents. By turning to the impugned order, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner received notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) and replied thereto. Likewise, she pointed out that the petitioner replied in full to the show cause notice. She contended that principles of natural justice were

Subaira Parvin Seeni Ibrahim, Ramnad vs. ACIT, Intnl. Taxn. Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 168/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Ms.Babitha, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

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

Manek Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-

ITA 4278/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITAs No.4276 & 4278/MUM/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12) 3 response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted purchase invoices of the specified parties, copies of bank statements evidencing payments made through proper banking channels by issuing