Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(4) falls under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(4) is Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (384 ITR 490), cited in 631 of the 902 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(4)

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association
247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court
112
citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40
3 SCC 261 · 1997 · Reported
106
citing judgments

The constitutional validity of an enactment can be supported by arguments that it would pass legal tests.

CIT v. Smt. Jasvinder Kaur
357 ITR 638 · 2013 · Reported
91
citing judgments

The benefit of Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains is not available when transactions in penny stocks are found to be part of a scheme involving price manipulation or accommodation entries, indicating the gains are not genuine and lack actual investment.

AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
138 Taxmann.com 571 · 2022 · High Court
78
citing judgments

The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) can deny deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80P, during the processing of a return under Section 143(1) if conditions for claiming such deductions, including filing the return by the due date as per Section 80AC, are not met.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax
292 ITR 49 · 2007 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion or reappraisal of existing facts, but require new or fresh tangible material or information indicating escapement of income.

Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT
459 ITR 730 · 2023 · High Court
76
citing judgments

Timely filing of the income-tax return under section 139(1) is a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, especially for Assessment Years 2018-19 onwards due to the amendment to section 80AC. Such deductions are not allowable if the return is filed belatedly or in response to a section 148 notice.

Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy v. ACIT
112 Taxmann.com 134 · 2019 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

The Supreme Court considered the delay in filing an appeal and the appellant's justification for it. The court noted that the appellant's registered address was used for communication and that the postal authorities returned mail. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' when considering the appellant's case.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan
286 ITR 274 · 2006 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for filing a belated return, acts as a proviso to Section 139(1). Consequently, the time limit for depositing amounts or utilizing funds to claim exemptions, such as under Section 54, extends up to the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).

CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal
339 ITR 610 · 2011 · High Court
66
citing judgments

A return of income filed within the period allowed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemptions and deductions, including those under Sections 54, 54F, and 80AC. However, depositing the unutilized capital gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a statutory and mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F.

Judgments on Section 139(4)

Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, Gandhinagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, Udyog Bhavan

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

ITA 1908/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Hardav Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 276CSection 69A

Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

Charak Helth Care & Rural Development Society, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

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

ITA 412/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

Umeshkumar Prataprai Awtani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1976/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Joydeep Mukherjee, Presently Residing at Usa vs. DCIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Bangalore, Bmtc Building, Koramangala

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2017/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Mukherjee, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner A 202, Prestige St. Johns Woods Of Income Tax Apt., 80, St. Johns Cross Road, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru South 560 029. Bangalore. Pan: Aawpm 7656E

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Saravanan, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 276C

Srilakshmi Devireddy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Devi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan, Indore vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

Pardeep Kumar Walia, Dehradun vs. DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

Rns Power Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143Section 270ASection 80

P & R Engineering Services Private Limited., New Delhi vs. Circle 19(1), Delhi, DCIT, New Delhi, India

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4537/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] P & R Engineering Service Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak Circle-19(1) Apartment, Rohini Courts, New Delhi S.O. Rohini Courts, North West Delhi, New Delhi- 110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V.K. Agarwal, Ar & Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031831 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R. W. Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 5,62,48,491/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Sole Reason That The Return Of Income Was Filed Belatedly On 30.03.2019 Though The Same Has To Be Filed Upto 31.10.2018 In Terms Of The Due Date As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Said Disallowance & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

Vishnu Janardhan Shirolkar Mahajan Wady Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 6603/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 254(1)

Vishnu Janardhan Shirolkar Mahajan Wady Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 6602/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 254(1)

Nadia Primary Teachers Training Institute, Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 41(1), Nadia

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

ITA 1669/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

Sandeep Arnuj Narang, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

ITA 6727/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blesandeep Arjun Narang, Ito 27(3)(1), 401, Runwal Grand, Mumbai Vs. 18Th Road, Chembur (East), Mumbai- 400 071. Pan : Adnpn1216D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Tisha BaghFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

Sekar Govindaswamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Sekar Govindaswamy, Addl/Jcit(A) - 1, No.306 Theja Sunshine Complex, Ludhiana. 16Th D Cross Pai Layout, K. R. Puram, Vs. Bangalore – 560 008, Karnataka. Pan No : Ayyps 5005 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Anto Joseph, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri. Anto Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1061/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54BSection 54F

Jainacharya Devendra Muni Shikshan and Chikitsa Shodh Sansthan, Udaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / ITO, Exemption Ward, Udaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 256/JODH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blejainacharya Devendra Muni Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Shikshan & Chikitsa Shodh Exemption Ward Sansthan Udaipur - 313001 N H 8-1 (4) Bhuwana Udaipur (Raj) - 313001 Pan No. Aaatj 5263 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A)-1 Visakhapatnam [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 05.03.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs. 24,75,863/- In Corpus Fund Of Rs. 6,09,448/- Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 250

Mahendra Singh Dharampal & Co., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

Section 113Section 139(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

Shree Govind Property & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2166/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Bhuvana Rajeswari Vijayasankar, Salem vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3379/CHNY/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: MR. G AKASH, Adv
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)