Which cases are most cited on Section 144?

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) — 3,926 citing judgments; CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) — 2,664 citing judgments; CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) — 2,267 citing judgments; Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (223 ITR 480) — 2,040 citing judgments; CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461) — 1,656 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 144?

BharatTax indexes 24,748 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 144 of the Income Tax Act?

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) is the decision most relied on for Section 144, cited in 3,926 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.

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Shri Prabir Santra

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

ITAT/147/2021HC Calcutta20 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 20Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv…For The Appellant. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act, For Brevity] Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7Th August, 2019 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1681- 1683/Kol/2017 Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2009-10 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Upholding Ld. Cit[A]’S Order Which Was Passed Overlooking The Fact That The Sources Of Money Deposited In The Banks Accounts Of The Assessee, Were Not At All Explained At Any Stage Of The Income Tax Proceedings Giving Rise To The Flaw In Basing The Decision On Extraneous Materials & Which Gives Rise To The Vice Of Flaw In The Decision Making Process ?

Section 144Section 147oSection 260ASection 69A

Sanjay Champaklal Mehta (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1254/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1254/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Sanjay Champaklal Mehta (Huf), Income Tax Officer, 12, Ganesh Appartment, Vs. Ward-5(2)(3), Nehru Nagar Circle, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Shamik H. Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148

Namdeo Vitthal Khatale, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. Srinivasa Kumar Sankranthi, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1800/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Srinivasa Kumar Income Tax (Osd), Sankranthi, Circle – 3(1), (I/C), R/O.Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Adpps0607K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 50C

Ritu Jain, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 5, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1981/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly vs. Shri Rajesh Singh Yadav, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 541/LKW/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

Section 144Section 68Section 69

Amiya Gopal Dutta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 1(1), Jpg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Amiya Gopal Dutta Acit, Circle-1(1), Jpg C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Vs. Gastin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001. Pan: Adbpd 9197 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 28.10.2021 U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Acted Unlawfully In Not Appreciating That The Conditions Precedent For Framing The Order Imposing Penalty U/S. 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 On 27-06-2019 Were Not Complied With And/Or Fulfilled For The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1). Jalpaiguri In The Present Context & His Purported Action On That Behalf Are Absolutely Is Ab Initio Void, Ultra Vires & Ex-Facie Null In Law. 2. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Impugned Order Imposing Penalty U/S. 271(1)(B) Of The Act Framed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Jalpaiguri, Emanating Out Of The Order U/S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Absolute Contravention Of The C.B.D.T. Instruction No. 1/2011 Dated 31-01-2011

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Marvel Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 779/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 250

Smt Juri H. Mehanta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 630/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Also, The Assessee Did Not Appear & Hence Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147