Section 139 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 263 (Return of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 263 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 139 is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 of the 3,629 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139

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. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

Canara Housing Development Co. v. DCIT
49 Taxmann.com 98 · 2014 · High Court
283
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act are not confined solely to incriminating material found during a search, and the Assessing Officer can assess total income for the relevant years.

State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited
10 SCC 201 · 2004 · Supreme Court
279
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly based on what is clearly expressed, without implying anything not stated or importing provisions to supply deficiencies. A person must clearly fall within the ambit of the charging section for tax to be levied.

Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT
36 Taxmann.com 523 · 2013 · High Court
267
citing judgments

An assessee cannot claim deductions or expenditures in a Section 153A assessment that were not claimed in the original completed assessment, even if documents were found during a search.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Judgments on Section 139

Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Junagadh-Una vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 881/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Mandali Limited, Vs. Baudin College Road, Village-Bandharda, Taluka-Una, Junagadh, Gujarat-362565 Junagadh, Gujarat-362565, "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagas5227E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019- 20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 09.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, On 05.03.2024. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Reopening The Assessment Under 148 Of The Act. The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Not Justified. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Reopening The Assessment Under 148 Of The Act. The Reopening Is Beyond The Powers Of The Jao.

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 80P

Chandresh Vishanji Pandit, Rajkot vs. DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 925/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 925/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 ] Chandresh Vishanji Pandit, Dcit/Acit-2(1), Rajkot, Block No.B22, Shagun Residency, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Satya Sai Hospital Road, Nana Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Mava, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp0401C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 19.06.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, Dated 11.03.2026. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Also In Law In The Dismissing Of Ground Of Appeal Relating To Initiation Of Action U/S 148 Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,00,000/- Made By Alleging That Assessee Had Paid “On Money” Through

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A