Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.268

Section 142(1) falls under section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 17,244 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

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. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Judgments on Section 142(1)

Ghanshyam Gupta, Agra vs. DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITSSA 5845/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrait(Ss)As No.5845 To 5851/Del/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2018-19 Ghanshyam Gupta, Vs. Dcit, 46, Old Vijay Nagar Colony, Central Circle, Agra – 282004, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Abcpg4654P It(Ss)As No.5900 To 5905/Del/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Anjula Gupta, Vs. Dcit, 46, Old Vijay Nagar Colony, Central Circle, Agra – 282004, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Abcpg4654P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 Order Per Bench: The Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against Ex Parte Orders Passed By The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2018-19 & Ay2012-13 To 2017-18 Respectively Under Section 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Having Regard To The It(Ss)As No.5845 To 5851/Del/2025 It(Ss)As No.5900 To 5905/Del/2025 Identical Issues Involved In These Matters These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed Of By A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

Br Associates, Uttarakahand vs. ACIT, Rishikesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 175/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Jaggo, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 555/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 633/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 632/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Reddi Paiditalli Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

ITA 242/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Anju Bharat Chelani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2598/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69B

Laxmanrao Akaram Patil, Tasgaon vs. DCIT, Sangli

In the result filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar M MaliFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144

Shaikh Naim Gulab Shaikh, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3076/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Naim Gulab Shaikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of Sk. Gulab Sk. Gamir Ward-2(1), Jalgaon Kela Suppliers, 2725, Chandni Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Savda-425502 Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan : Basps5568N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 68

Bimal Kumar Sikaria, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Bimal Kumar Sikaria…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 159, Ramdulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aurps0380C] Vs. Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A N Chatterjee & G Banerjee, Fcas, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Transportation & Filed His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income At Rs.35,55,000/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. On Examination Of The P & L A/C & 26As Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Found Mismatch In 26As Of Rs.26,78,988/- & Added The Same In The Hands Of The Assessee. Bimal Kumar Sikaria 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.26,78,988/- As The Failed To Discharge His Onus To Prove His Case.

Section 143(2)Section 250

Bharat Kumar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8785/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethbharat Kumar Choudhary, Vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Avenue 3, Shop No-12, Jai Santoshi Mata Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc. Gilban Nagar. Gulmohar Road No-5. Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vileparle West. Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400049. Pan/Gir No: Cfwpk1543K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 69a

Pooja Vinod Wadhwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, -2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpooja Vinod Wadhwani, 105, Tulip Building, May Flower, Ambernath, Maharashtra - 421501 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaqpw2153G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, ……………… Respondent Kalyan (W) - 421301

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Darshana Jatin Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7769/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

Swaraj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Bhardwaj, Advocate &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

Rajesh Tyagi, Ambah vs. ITO Ward 1, Morena

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 618/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Subodh Gupta, Agra vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 609/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2022-23 Subodh Gupta Vs. Ito, 71, Saket Colony Shahganj Agra Ward 1(1)(2), Agra Agra Pan : Adqfs4617N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prarthna Jalaan, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 40

Rajav Jain, Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ashoknagar, Ashoknagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 457/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajav Jain V Ito, Ward No. 18, Purana Bazar, Ashok Nagar Ashok Nagar M.P. – 473 331 M.P. – 473 331 Pan : Anmpj1439M (Appellant)(Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Om Prakash Gupta, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Gwalior

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Site No. 1, City Centre Ward 3(2), Gwalior Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India Pan : Agspg9180F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80T

Vimla Devi Bhattar, Phalodi vs. ITO, Ward, Phalodi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevimla Devi Bhattar Ito, Ward E-51, Industrial Area Khichan Phalodi - 342301 (Phalodi) Jodhpur - 342301 Pan No. Amjpb 6652 J Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A