Section 144B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.273

Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 273 (Faceless Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 273 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 144B is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 of the 10,521 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144B

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

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.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

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. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO
230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · High Court
527
citing judgments

A cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it is engaged in cooperative activities. It also clarifies the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received from investments made in cooperative banks, after duly considering the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Judgments on Section 144B

Mulakh Raj Talwar, Delhi vs. ITO NFAC Ward 43 (3), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1825/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Sanjay Awathimulakh Raj Talwar Vs. Ito, (Nfac) J-6/91D, Rajouri Garden, Ward 43(3) New Delhi – 110027 New Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpr5874Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 O R D E R Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.12.2025 Of The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi(Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Din & Order No: Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1084057497(1) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2025 U/S 147R.W.S144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, For Ay: 2020-21. P A G E | 2 Mulakh Raj Talwar (Ay: 2020-21) 2. None Appeared For Assessee In Spite Of Notices. On Hearing Ld. Dr & On Perusal Of Impugned Orders We Find That The Nfac Had Mentioned Of Issuing Of Notices On 3 Occasions But Assesse Had Failed To Respond, Therefore, Exparte Order Was Passed. At The Same Time It Appears From Form 35, That Assessee Had Alleged That Notices Were Not Served At Stage Of Assessment & Grounds In That Regard Were Raised. Same Have Not Been Addressed By Ld. Cit(A) & On Merits Alone The Findings Are Given. We Find Ld. Ao Observes In Assessment Order Itself In Para 43.3 That Assessee Had Sought Adjournment But Thereafter No Reply Was Filed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Section 147r

Davinder Kaur, Kharar, Punjab vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Mohali, Punjab

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 840/CHANDI/2026[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.840/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Davinder Kaur Ito Ward – 6(1) 111/15, Ward No. 10, Sector – 10 Mohali, Punjab बनाम/ Vs. Near Anaj Mandi, Kharar, Rupnagar Punjab – 140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cndpk-7903-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 20-03-2026 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 18-12-2025. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C For Rs.62.04 Lacs. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment For Want Of Any Representation

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C