Section 142 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.268

Section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 268 (Inquiry before assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 268 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 142 is Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer (308 ITR 22), cited in 74 of the 279 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 142

Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer
308 ITR 22 · 2009 · High Court
74
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147 after four years unless the income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Furthermore, reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.

Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT
305 ITR 103 · 2008 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

An intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) cannot make adjustments for debatable issues that require detailed scrutiny, such as the disallowance of delayed employee contributions to ESI/PF. Appellate authorities also have the power to entertain fresh claims made by an assessee, even if these were not raised in the original or revised return of income.

CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.
339 ITR 606 · 2011 · High Court
50
citing judgments

For the purpose of identifying a bank's rural branch under Explanation (ia) to Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, the 'place' refers to a revenue village, not a ward of a local authority like a Panchayat or Municipality. A rural branch is located in a village where the population is less than 10,000.

Canyon Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO
399 ITR 202 · 2017 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153C are invalid if the Assessing Officer records a mechanical satisfaction note without proper application of mind, regarding seized material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than the searched person.

M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills v. CIT
269 ITR 192 · 2004 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Assessment proceedings cannot be re-opened based solely on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Foramer Finance
251 ITR 416 · 2001 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Reopening assessments is permissible after four years if there was an escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, even if the initial assessment involved a change of opinion.

CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd.
35 ITR 662 · 1959 · High Court
39
citing judgments

A transfer of an industrial undertaking where the ownership changes hands in reality and effectively is not considered a reconstruction. Reconstruction implies the original business continues to function and its identity is preserved.

119 (Gujarat) (HC). 4. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
78 Taxmann.com 58 · 2017 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 require a live link and direct connection between the material that came into the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequently and the belief that income has escaped assessment. Borrowed satisfaction from another officer's belief is not sufficient.

CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd.
286 ITR 674 · 2006 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Recourse to reassessment under section 147 beyond four years is not permissible if the circumstances for extending the limitation do not exist.

Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT
216 ITR 759 · 1995 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

A tax demand subsists even if the assessment order is set aside, and the date of the original assessment remains the relevant date. This principle clarifies that tax payment methods do not alter the fundamental liability to pay tax based on an assessment order.

Judgments on Section 142

Rupee Soren L/H of Shibu Soren, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 100/DEL/1997[01/04/1986 to 26/04/1996]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Bleit(Ss) A No. 100/Del/1997 Block Period : 1.04.1986 To 26.04.1996 Shibu Soren Through Vs. Acit, Cc-6, New Delhi Rupee Soren Legal Heir Of Shibu Soren) Vill-Nemra Po Barlanga Ps Barlanga Jharkhand-829110 (Pan: Asnps4286P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca, Shri Uma Shankar, Adv & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By : Shri K. Hauthang, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Block Assessment Order Framed By The Acit, Cc-6, Delhi For The Block Period 1.4.1986 To 26.4.1996 U/S. 158Bc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As Act) Vide His Order Dated 29.4.1997. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Farming Of Assessment U/S. 158Bc Without Issuing Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act After Filing Of Return Of Income For The Block Period In Terms Of Notice U/S. 158Bc Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Ground No. 2 Vide Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Which Reads As Under:- “2. That The Impugned Assessment Farmed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Is Without Jurisdiction As No Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, Was Issued & Served After Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Undisclosed Income In Pursuance To Notice Issued U/S. 158Bc Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158Section 158B

Sonaj and Company, Solapur vs. DCIT Cirlcle 2(2), Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITSSA 30/PUN/2025[2001-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2026AY 2001-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraitssa No.30/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Sonaj & Company, Dcit, Circle – 2(2), Solapur P.O. No. 11, Indapur, Road, Akluj-413101 Vs. Pan : Aasfs9837R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-02-2026 Date Of 06-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 (“Cit(A)”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 1990-91. 2. The Brief Fact Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Petroleum Product, Hero Honda Motorcycle Spare Parts & Other Commodities. A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 21.07.1999. Subsequent To The Search Action, Notice U/S 158Bc Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 15.10.1999 Requesting It To Furnish Return Of Income For The Block Period 1990-1991 To 1999-2000 & For Part Period Of Ay 2000-01. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Filed Its Return For The Aforesaid Block Period (“Block Return”) On 16.12.1999 Declaring Total Undisclosed Income At Rs.1,92,000/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act On 27.04.2001. The Ld. Ao Completed The Block Assessment Vide His Order Passed U/S 158Bc Of The Act Dated 30.07.2001 Determining Total Undisclosed Income For The Block Period At Rs.19,77,401/- Comprising Of Addition(S) Made On Account Of – (I) Household Expenses Noted In The Seized

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 153BSection 158B