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

Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd Ganauli, Ganauli Rauza Gaon vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Assessing Officer NFAC Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/LKW/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Sept 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Co-Operative Cane V. Assessment Unit Development Union Ltd. Income Tax Department Ganauli (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaaac3185D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri J. N. Shukla, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sudhakar Shukla, D.A. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2026, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) On 01.10.202, Declaring Nil Income & Claiming Deduction Of Rs.2,72,69,086/- Under Section 80P Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. After Considering The Replies Furnished By The Assessee In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Ao Disallowed The Claim Of The Assessee Towards Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act Being The Commission Income Of Rs.2,63,53,904/- And

For Appellant: Shri J. N. Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri sudhakar Shukla, D.A
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 191HSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

The Jagraon Coop Sugar Mills Ltd., Jagraon, Vpo Budhewal vs. ITO Ward-1, Moga

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar08 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.872/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Jagraon Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Ito Ward – 1 C/O Budhewal Co-Op., Sugar Mills Ltd. Moga, Punjab – 142026 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Budhewal, Ludhiana Punjab – 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-0626-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parveen Jindal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Neerja Sharma (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-09-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08-09-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 19.09.2025 In The Matter Of An Rectification Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 154 Of The Act On 12.03.2020 Wherein Ld. Ao Charged Interest U/S 234A(3) For Rs.250.74 Lacs.

For Appellant: Sh. Parveen Jindal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Neerja Sharma (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 234A(3)