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

Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1361/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, Cr.Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 Pan No. :Adrpg 5357 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-27, Dated 05.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days. Though The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Condonation Application Nor Any Affidavit, However, Looking To The Facts Of The Case & The Issue Involved Therein, I Am Of The View That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Deserves To Be Condoned, Which Has Also Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Alleged Undisclosed Jewellery. 4. Facts In Brief Are That Are That The Assessee Had Filed Original Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Sen, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B

Korom Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Payyannur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kannur

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

ITA 752/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Korom Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanayi P.O., Payyannur, Kannur 670611 [Pan: Aaaak6741R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri P.J. Jacob, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Under The Provisions Of Section 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Therefore, The Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 30.03.2015. 2 Korom Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 19.05.2015 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act Of Rs. 4,878,360/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kannur Vide Order Dated 15.02.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 4,87,260/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied The Claim Of Deduction U/S. 80P Of Rs. 4,878,360/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Jacob, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80P