← 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)

Jigna Jayeshkumar Macwan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 411/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 03/02/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, within three days from issuing show cause notice, for non-compliance of notice under

Jigna Jayeshkumar Macwan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 410/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 03/02/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, within three days from issuing show cause notice, for non-compliance of notice under

R R Enterprise, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 409/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 407, 408 & 409/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) R.R. Enterprise, D.C.I.T., White Pearl, Near Galaxy Central Circle-2, Vs. Circle, B/H Galaxy Surat. Aventura, Pal, Surat-395009 Pan No. Aaufr 6898 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) recorded that the assessee failed to company notice under Section 142(1) dated 13/02/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 20/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 24/02/2021

R R Enterprise, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 407, 408 & 409/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) R.R. Enterprise, D.C.I.T., White Pearl, Near Galaxy Central Circle-2, Vs. Circle, B/H Galaxy Surat. Aventura, Pal, Surat-395009 Pan No. Aaufr 6898 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) recorded that the assessee failed to company notice under Section 142(1) dated 13/02/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 20/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 24/02/2021

R R Enterprise, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 407/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 407, 408 & 409/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) R.R. Enterprise, D.C.I.T., White Pearl, Near Galaxy Central Circle-2, Vs. Circle, B/H Galaxy Surat. Aventura, Pal, Surat-395009 Pan No. Aaufr 6898 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) recorded that the assessee failed to company notice under Section 142(1) dated 13/02/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 20/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 24/02/2021

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 03/02/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03/02/2021

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 391/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 03/02/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee ... penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03/02/2021

Bhartesh Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

furnishing of details specific to the CASS reasons. It was submitted that the details were furnished in response to notice issued under section 142(1), dated 27-6-2016 5 and after verification the Asstt. Commissioner had accepted the explanation given by the assessee, so proper enquiry was made ... scrutiny selection in cases. This functionality is expected to be operationalized by 15th October, 2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act which is enclosed with the first questionnaire would proceed to verify only the specific aspects requiring examination/verification. In such cases

R.P. Associates, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Noida

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 888/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(1)(a)Section 250Section 40

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Manish Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result grounds of revenue for A

ITA 219/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ruchira SinghalFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHES “DB”: INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Manish Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result grounds of revenue for A

ITA 218/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ruchira SinghalFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHES “DB”: INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH

Shri Anil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

accounts etc, it would be difficult to deduce the correct income of the assessee chargeable to tax. Therefore, a show cause notice under Section 142(1) dated 26.03.2013 was issued by the AO giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain as to why his account should not be subjected ... Section 142(2A), onerous burden was sought to be placed on the assessee. The show cause notice dated 26.03.2013 was issued under Section 142(1) which was received on 28.03.2013 and compliance thereof was made on the appointed date, i.e., 30.03.2013 to defend the stance of the assessee. Notwithstanding

JCIT(OSD), -2(1), Indore vs. Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was also served on the assessee on 23.1.2022 and in continuation thereof notices under section 142(1) were also issued to the assessee from time to time. 6. During the assessment proceedings, the ld.AO noticed that the assessee has earned income from proprietorship concerns

The DCIT, 2(1), Indore vs. Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 309/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was also served on the assessee on 23.1.2022 and in continuation thereof notices under section 142(1) were also issued to the assessee from time to time. 6. During the assessment proceedings, the ld.AO noticed that the assessee has earned income from proprietorship concerns

The DCIT, 2(1), Indore vs. Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was also served on the assessee on 23.1.2022 and in continuation thereof notices under section 142(1) were also issued to the assessee from time to time. 6. During the assessment proceedings, the ld.AO noticed that the assessee has earned income from proprietorship concerns

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

that during the assessment proceedings, initiated, pursuant to notice under Section 153A, the Assessing Officer issued a very detailed show cause notice under Section 142(1) dated 15/10/2019. In the said show cause notice, the Assessing Officer vide question No. 20, asked the assessee to furnish explanation with regard

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

that during the assessment proceedings, initiated, pursuant to notice under Section 153A, the Assessing Officer issued a very detailed show cause notice under Section 142(1) dated 15/10/2019. In the said show cause notice, the Assessing Officer vide question No. 20, asked the assessee to furnish explanation with regard

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

that during the assessment proceedings, initiated, pursuant to notice under Section 153A, the Assessing Officer issued a very detailed show cause notice under Section 142(1) dated 15/10/2019. In the said show cause notice, the Assessing Officer vide question No. 20, asked the assessee to furnish explanation with regard

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

that during the assessment proceedings, initiated, pursuant to notice under Section 153A, the Assessing Officer issued a very detailed show cause notice under Section 142(1) dated 15/10/2019. In the said show cause notice, the Assessing Officer vide question No. 20, asked the assessee to furnish explanation with regard