“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)

Raja Satheeshkumar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2942/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2942/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Raja Satheeshkumar, Income Tax Officer, H.No.2/167, Cecg Nagar, Alagapuram, Ward-1(6), Periyapudur, Salem, Salem. Tamil Nadu-636 016. [Pan: Auqps9210G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Bhupendran S, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246Section 246A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के

Haridoss Gnanaprakasam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Circle-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2263/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2263/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Raj Kapoor, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

C-2016 Itchiputhur Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2191/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2191/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 C-2016 Itchiputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society, 12Th Road, Ward 1, Itchiputhur Village, Arakkonam Tk, Vellore. Vellore 631 003. [Pan: Aabac1870C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 5 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P(2)(a)

response, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at ₹.23,74,370/-. In response to the notice under section 142(1) of 4 I.T.A. No.2191/Chny/25 the Act, the reply furnished by the assessee are reproduced at para 3.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer noted that

Asia Coke Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1403/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1403/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asia Coke Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bascon Futura Sv, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aakca4655Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Sanchita, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

income filed, the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.03.2022. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 06.10.2022 and in response to which, the submissions filed by the assessee are extracted at page 2 of the assessment

Priti Pravin Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8460/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2011-12 Priti Pravin Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, D/3/703, Moraj Residency, Ward-28(2)(4), Palm Beach Road, Vs. Tower No.6, Sector-16A, Vashi Railway Station, Sanpada East, Commercial Complex, New Mumbai–400705. Vashi, [Pan: Atbpk1174B] Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kartik Kutmutia For Revenue : Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 28-10-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Originally U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟). Subsequently, Basis The Receipt Of Information That The Assessee Has Placed Time Deposit Of Rs. 19 Lakhs With Hdfc Bank, A Notice U/S. 148 Of 2 The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Said Notice, No Return Of Income Was Filed & Thereafter, After Issuance Of Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act & A Show Cause Notice Which Again Remain Non-Complied, The Assessment Was Completed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Wherein The Ao Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 19 Lakhs As Un-Explained Money U/S. 69B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kartik KutmutiaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL

Late Ramesh Mohanlal Jain (Through Legal Heir Mrs. Bhavna Ramesh Jain), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 518/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

case law relied upon by the parties. Admittedly in present case the proceedings were initiated against the assessee by issuance of notice under section 142(1) on 09.03.2018, the assessee thereafter died on 04.10.2019, therefore at the time of proceedings initiated the assessee was alive, however no compliance were

Income Tax Officer/Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kruti Sandeep Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1968/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Kruti Sandeep Shah, Ward-19(2)(2), 117, Navyug Nagar Forjet Hill 503, 5Th Floor, Vs. Road, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400007. Parel, [Pan: Aapps4121F] Mumbai-400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Shah For Revenue : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-01-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) On 26-09-2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,04,880/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Was In Receipt Of Information From The Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has Obtained Accommodation

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL