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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Shri. Somanur Ramaswamy Bhoopathy, Coimbatore

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

ITA 4133/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.:4133/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Shri. Somanur Ramaswamy Corporate Circle – 1, Vs. Bhoopathy, Coimbatore. 21, New Lorry Stand, South Ukkadam, Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan:Adopb-4129-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Gokul Raj, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.10.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2016-17 Against The Order U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.03.2024. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Hiring Passenger Vehicles. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y.2016-17 As Per Section 139 Of The Act. Based On The Information

For Appellant: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. Gokul Raj, Advocate
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

K 1364 Veerasolapuram Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 3790/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3790/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 K 1364 Veerasolapuram Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Ward 1(4), Limited, Veerasolapuram Po, Tirupur. Kangayam Tk. Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, 638701. [Pan:Aabak4255B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. That The Authorities Below, Ignoring The Petition Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 80P(2)(a)