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

Pushkar Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITSSA 140/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss).A Nos.139 & 140/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Pushkar Tradelink Pvt. Ltd …………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Room No.5/2, 5Th Floor, 19, Pullock Street, W.B. 700038. [Pan: Aaecp9517A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata …………..………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rana Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 28, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 17.07.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee & Also Are Relating To The Same Search Action, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee With Delay Of 60 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of It(Ss).A Nos.139 & 140/Kol/2024

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

Pushkar Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITSSA 139/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss).A Nos.139 & 140/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Pushkar Tradelink Pvt. Ltd …………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Room No.5/2, 5Th Floor, 19, Pullock Street, W.B. 700038. [Pan: Aaecp9517A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata …………..………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rana Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 28, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 17.07.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee & Also Are Relating To The Same Search Action, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee With Delay Of 60 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of It(Ss).A Nos.139 & 140/Kol/2024

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Jao- the ITO, Ward-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1092/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44A

Vishwakarma Enterprises India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3082/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3082/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Vishwakarma Enterprises India P. Ltd., ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant E-136 Basement, Kalkaji, Delhi 110019 Pan: Aadcv-7136-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4), R. No.194A, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110019 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, Chartered Accountant, (Through Vc) "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 19.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 69 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 69 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148

Chithalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1788/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Chinthalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)