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

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69