Section 144 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.271

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 271 (Best judgment assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 271 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 144 is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 24,748 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144

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.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

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.

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.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court
713
citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
321 ITR 362 · 2010 · Supreme Court
623
citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory for completing an assessment under Section 143(3), and the failure to do so renders the assessment invalid. This defect is not curable under Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgments on Section 144

Abhishek Agrawal, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T., Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 60/VNS/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Abhishek Agral, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 59/VNS/2026[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Abhishek Agrawal, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T., Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 58/VNS/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Shubhash Chandra, Jaunpur vs. Addl./Jt./Dy./A.C.I.T., ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 44/VNS/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shubhash Chandra V. The Nfac Siddiqpur Income Tax Department Jaunpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Buapc1491E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Smt. Reeta Dubey, Jaunpur vs. Income Tax Officer - II, Jaunpur

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

ITA 128/VNS/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Reeta Dubey V. The Income Tax Officer – Ii W/O Shri P. P. Dubey Jaunpur Pachihatia Near St. Patrics School Jaunpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Anbpd0960C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rahul Gabhawala, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.10,16,800/- In Her Savings Bank Account Maintained With State Bank Of India During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) By The Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act On 29.03.2019. However, In Response To This

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 69A

Shweta Harishnkar Prasad Kanaujiya, Ballia vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(5), Ballia

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

ITA 46/VNS/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shweta Harishnkar Prasad Kanaujiya V. The Ito 2(5) D/O Rambilas Ram Ballia M/S Malap Harsenpur Indane Gramin Vitrak, Malap Harsenpur Ballia (U.P) Tan/Pan:Dutpk4832G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was The Proprietor Of M/S Malap Harsenpur Indane Gramin Vitrak, Ballia Engaged In Distribution Of Lpg Cylinder & Was Dealer Of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. In This Case, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Palghar, Maharashtra Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Act On 24.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To The File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. As The Assessee Failed To File The Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Proceeded With Consequential Action Of Completing The Assessment Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 69A

Manoj Kumar Sonker, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Varanasi

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

ITA 199/VNS/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Sonker V. The Ito 3(1) Chaukaghat Varanasi Varanasi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Fklps7279R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Commission Agent Dealing In Vegetables & Was Running A Proprietorship Firm In The Name & Style “M/S Nageena Prasad & Sons”. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Huge Cash Deposits In His Bank Accounts. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits Made In His Bank Accounts During The Year Under Consideration. However, There Was No

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

Aniruddha Mukherjee, Rahara Barrackpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 197/VNS/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Aniruddha Mukherjee, Rahara Barrackpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 196/VNS/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Vikram Yadav, Chandauli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Chandauli

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

ITA 177/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vikram Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer Niyamtabad Ward 3(3) Chandauli (U.P) Chandauli Tan/Pan:Agzpy9824F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.26,87,500/- In His Bank Account No.360402011001994 Maintained With Union Bank Of India, Padao, Chandauli. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee In Response

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Vakil Kushwaha, Kushinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Thane

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

ITA 173/VNS/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vakil Kushwaha V. The Ito 2(4) House No.09, Bishanpura Kushinagar Pathera Buzurg Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Addl/Jcit(A)] For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 02.08.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,08,672/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed His Revised Return Of Income On 29.03.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,08,430/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Computer- Assisted Scrutiny Selection (Cass) And, Accordingly, Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

Anil Sonkar, Mau vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Mau

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

ITA 138/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Sonkar V. The Income Tax Officer Nawapura Ward 3(3) Dohrighat, Ghosi Mau Mau (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ecaps9964P (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Faiyaz Ahmad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Addl/Jcit(A)-3] For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Capitioned Assessment Year, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Agriculture Foods, Beverages & Fruits. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.31,88,300/- In His Two Bank Accounts, Viz. Bank Account No.31310134953 Maintained With State Bank Of India & Bank Account No.432802010019950 Maintained With Union Bank Of India

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Suman Shukla, Gorakhpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Gorakhpur

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

ITA 134/VNS/2024[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Suman Shukla V. The Income Tax Officer 98-C, Ajad Nagar Ward 2(1) Jungle Tulsiram Gorakhpur Bichhiya, Gorakhpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Dobps9500B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.05.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.11,35,000/- In Her Two Bank Accounts, Viz. Bank Account Nos. 31880521189 & 31337026084, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Gorakhpur, During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, In Response To Notice Under

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Hira Lal, Ballia vs. Income Tax Officer, 2 (4), Ballia

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

ITA 130/VNS/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hira Lal V. The Ito 2(4) Tikhampur Ballia Ballia (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajepl9069M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Dealing In Agricultural Produce Like Potato, Onion, Etc. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs.25,10,000/- In His Bank Account No.1063102000002670 Maintained With Idbi Bank, Ballia During The Demonetization Period. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To File The Return Of Income. However, The Assessee Neither Filed The Return Of Income Nor

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 246ASection 250Section 294(4)Section 69A

Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Limited, Pondha vs. Incpome Tax Officer Ward 1 (1)(2), Income, Income Tax Office Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 335/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiita No. 334/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 335/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Pondha, Sahaspur, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfp9138R Assesseeby : Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 51Section 69A

Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Limited, Pondha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1)(2), Income Tax Office, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/DDN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiita No. 334/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 335/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Pondha, Sahaspur, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfp9138R Assesseeby : Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 51Section 69A

Mukesh Soni, Jhansi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 407/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jul 2026AY 2016-17
Section 144Section 250

Orbit Transporters Regd. Badal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bathinda

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

ITA 606/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Udayan Das Guptaorbit Transporters Regd. Badal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 2, C/O M/S. Orbit Aviation Private Ltd. Bathinda. 1St Floor, Metro Plaza, Sco 54-55, Sector 9D, Chandigarh - 160 009. (Pan : Aaafo2209F)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manek Shah Kakpoor, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Samra Industries, Faridkot vs. The PCIT, Bathinda Now Jurisdiction the PCIT-1, Amritsar, Bathinda

In the result this order u/s 263 dated 25/03/2019, is set aside back to the Ld

ITA 583/ASR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Jul 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 263

Classic Network Private Limited and Backbone Enterprise Limited Jv, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)