Section 142(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.268

Section 142(2) 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(2) is Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO (181 TTJ 600), cited in 29 of the 83 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 142(2)

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO
181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

CIT v. K. S. Venkatksubbiah Reddiar
221 ITR 18 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An activity is considered business if it involves a continuous course of activity and is carried on with a profit motive.

Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
27 Taxmann.com 15 · 2012 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A revised return filed beyond the period of limitation under section 139(5) can still be considered valid if it rectifies an omission, such as a discrepancy in turnover due to market price changes.

CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi
367 ITR 682 · 2014 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional notice, and the absence of such a notice renders the assessment order invalid. Failure to issue a valid notice under Section 143(2) cannot be cured by subsequent actions or findings.

Rekha Rani v. DCIT
154 ITD 617 · 2015 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143(2) that remains uncomplied with; it should be restricted to the first default only.

Golden Insulation & Engg. Ltd. v. CIT
305 ITR 427 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A change in the method of accounting cannot be a valid reason for filing a revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act.

HC) Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. (v) DCIT v. Lab India Instruments (P.) Ltd.
93 ITD 120 · 2005 · ITAT
10
citing judgments
Balram Kumar Mahendra v. ITO
21 Taxmann.com 222 · 2012 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Napar Drugs (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
98 ITD 285 · ITAT
5
citing judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: 2006 285 ITR 112 (Delhi); (b) ACIT Range 10(1) v. Citicorp Finance India Limited
300 ITR 398 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 142(2)

Panna Lal Prajapati, Mirzapur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Shri Panna Lal Prajapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhudev Dubey, Kai Gali, Ward-3(2), Mirzapur Bhatwa Ki Pokhari, Mirzapur Pan:Azeps1524N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Cit(A)-Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of The Rs. 12,73,650/- By Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143 (3)/147 Of The I.T. Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter The Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated On The Allegation That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Amounting To Rs.30,63,500/- In Bank Account Which Remain Unexplained Is Not Correct Since The Cash Deposit Are From Disclosed Sources Hence The Satisfaction Recorded Is Not Correct & There Was No Independent Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer Before Initiating Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Learned Cit Appeal Was Not Correct In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Not Speaking Order In The Eye Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1151/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd……………………………………………..…..……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aahcm6624J] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata............…....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.4,540/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Due To Large Share Premium Received By The Assessee During The Relevant Financial Year. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) & 142(2) Of The Act Requesting For Furnishing Requisite Information. In Response To The Notices, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Provided Primary Details Including An Explanation That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. Upon

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.732/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer 4, Jivraj Park बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(7) Nr. Vejalpur Ahmedabad V/S. Near State Bank Of India Jivraj Park Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupt 1202 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A