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

Pegasus Event and Convention Services, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-7, Pune

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

ITA 186/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Pegasus Event & Convention Services, Assistant Commissioner Services E 1/5 Phase Ii, Cibercity, Of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Haveli, Pune H.O., Pune-411001 Vs. Pune Pan : Aaifp8920C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.11.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.22,93,281/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For Under-Reporting Of Income Vide His Order Dated 19.08.2025. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Did Not Furnish Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For Ay 2020-21. Based On The Information Flagged On Insight Portal By The Directorate Of Income Tax (Systems), Cbdt, It Was Found That The Substantial Income Of The Assessee Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment For The Ay 2020-21. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Following The Mandated Procedure In Law. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee With The Prior Approval Of The Specified Authority. In Response To 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 274

Nabanita Medhi, Goalpara vs. ITO, Ward Goalpara, Goalpara

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Nabanita Medhi…………………………………………………..…..Appellant Kalitapara, Goalpara Town Assam-783101 [Pan: Bkdpm6847B] Vs. Ito, Ward, Goalpara…………..……...……………………………..Respondent Assam-783101 Appearances By: Shri Nitin Sharma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2026 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File A Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. Information Was Received Through The Compliance Management Strategy (Cms) Of Cbdt By The Assessing Officer Indicating That There Were Substantial Financial Transactions In The Case Of The Assessee. The Information Revealed Total Credits, Including Cash Deposits In The Current Account Maintained With Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Goalpara, Amounting To Rs.2,52,35,581/- & Tds U/S 194C From M/S Goldcrest Services Private

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 250