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

Ran Vijay Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-28, Kolkata

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

ITA 2223/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm I.T.A. No. 2223/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ran Vijay Singh...............................………………………………….......................................Appellant 2, Hide Road, Kolkata – 700 043 [Pan: Amhps 8770 J] Dcit Cir 28....……………………………………………………...............................................Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Appearances By: Shri M.D. Shah, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04 , 2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) – Xiv, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Learned Ar Submits That The A.O. Made Addition Of Rs. 63,16,063/- For Non Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition To An Extent Of Rs. 43,77,000/- Holding That The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Is Not Applicable As The Said Payment Paid On Account Of Rent To M/S. Kolkata Port Trust In View Of The Certificate Issued U/S 197(1) Of The Act By The Income Tax Department & Confirmed The Balance Sheet Of Rs. 19,39,066/-. The Learned Ar Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In The Case Of Ansal Land Mark Township

Section 139Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)

In the result, ground nos

ITA 62/JAB/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 62/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Vijay Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Kiran Saree Vs Ward 1(2), Centre, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur Jabalpur Pan : Addpj 1025 E / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Sumit Nema, Adv. Revenue By : Shri V.B. Sargar, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Jabalpur Dated 2Nd December 2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Briefly Stated Facts, As Culled Out From The Record, Are That A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Act Was Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 05.11.2009. Certain Discrepancies Were Noticed. Assessee Offered Excess Cash Of Rs.3,24,753/- & Excess Stock Of Rs.16,77,602/- As Undisclosed Income. In Total Assessee Made A Disclosure Of Rs.20 Lakhs Towards Excess Cash & Excess Stock. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued As The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income. In Compliance Thereto, Return Was Filed On 09.11.2011. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Learned Assessing Officer Examined The Trading Accounts Prepared By The Assessee For Pre-Survey & Post-Survey Period, Purchase & Sales Made Thereafter & Also Observed That Assessee Sold The Entire Stock & Furniture Of The Shop At Rs.16 Lakhs. Financial Statements Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Ito Ay : 2010-11 2

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V.B. Sargar, DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 148