Section 142A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.269

Section 142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 269 (Estimation of value of assets by Valuation Officer) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 269 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 142A is CIT v. R.K.Construction Co. (313 ITR 65), cited in 86 of the 364 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 142A

CIT v. R.K.Construction Co.
313 ITR 65 · 2009 · High Court
86
citing judgments

When the Assessing Officer conducts inquiries and accepts the assessee's explanation, the PCIT cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 solely due to a difference of opinion with the conclusion drawn by the AO.

Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT
234 ITR 170 · 1998 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment is not permissible without fresh tangible material, merely on a change of opinion or a fresh application of mind to the same facts.

Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT
262 ITR 407 · 2003 · Supreme Court
67
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions to income solely based on a Valuation Officer's report under Section 55A or 142(2), particularly for unexplained investments or expenditure under Section 69B, as the AO is the primary fact-finding authority (this was the position pre-Section 142A).

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and CIT v. Chetan Das Lachman Das
254 CTR 392 · 2012 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Additions cannot be made to assessments under Sections 153A and 153C if no incriminating material was found during a search operation. Assessments for each year preceding the search are distinct and separate.

Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle
339 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Additions made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of a retracted statement under section 132(4) cannot be sustained without corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of assets, at the time of the search.

CIT v. Bajrang Textiles
294 ITR 561 · 2007 · High Court
50
citing judgments

A direction for special audit under Section 142(2A), issued near the expiry of the limitation period primarily to gain an extension of time or with instructions beyond the section's scope, is illegal, rendering the subsequent assessment time-barred.

Experion Developers P. Ltd. v. ACIT WP(C) 11302/
67 Taxmann.com 339 · 2016 · High Court
43
citing judgments
Green Infra Ltd. v. ITO
38 Taxmann.com 253 · 2013 · ITAT
42
citing judgments

Share premium and share application money cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 if the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness and identity of the investors are established. The onus is on the revenue authorities to prove that the apparent nature of the receipt is not real.

CIT v. Sunita Mansingha
393 ITR 121 · 2017 · Supreme Court
41
citing judgments

When estimating construction costs or expenditure for assessment, local PWD rates must be preferred over CPWD rates, as CPWD rates are generally higher.

Judgments on Section 142A

Smt. Krishna Roy, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Burdwan

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1424/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2004-05 Smt. Krishna Roy Acit, Circle-2, बनाम / Vivekananda Pally, Pirpukur Aaykar Bhawan, V/S. (West), Burdwan-713101 Court Compound, [Pan No.Agmpr 9245 A] Burdwan-713101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Baijuath Singh, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 23-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Burdwan’S Order Dated 25.04.2018 Passed In Case No.98/Cit(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir:2/Bwn/2010-11 Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Order Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Unexplained Investment Addition Of ₹7.31 Lac In Construction Of A Building At Burdwan As Follows:- “3. "नणय़/Decision: All The Grounds Pertain To The Effective Issue Of Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.7,31,000 On Account Of Unexplained Investment In A Property Constructed By The App. This Is The 2Nd Round Of Litigation Against The Order Passed By The Ao Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Itat To Adjudicate The Matter Afresh In The First Round. During The Original Assessment Proceeding, The Ao Observed Hat The Appellant Has Constructed A New Property. He Therefore, Referred To The Dvo For Valuation Of The Property Under Section 142A Of The It Act. The Dvo Determined The Value Of The Property T Rupees For 4.81 Lakhs As Against The Investment Declared By The Pp At

Section 142ASection 143(3)