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

V.Kuppusamy, Kangayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward I(4)/Tirupur, Tirupur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3700/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3700 /Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kuppusamy The Income Tax Officer Door No.281, Palayavelliyam Vs. Ward 1(4) Palayam, Nathakadaiyur Tirupur. Tiruppur – 638 108. [Pan: Atrpk4591J] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Harinanndha Kumar, Ca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.11.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 16.03.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”)For The Assessment Year 2018-19. :-2-: Ita. No3700/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri. Harinanndha Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 69A

Vasantha Kalyanasondaram, Saligramam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 8(1) Che, Nungambakkam, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3690/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3690/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vasantha Kalyanasondaram The Income Tax Officer No.138, M.G.R.Street Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1) Kaveri Rangan Nagar Chennai. Saligramam S.O., Saligramam Chennai – 600 093. [Pan: Fhjpk0739K] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Sailesh Bhandari, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.01.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2023 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. :-2-: Ita. No3690/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sailesh Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Rani Promoter Private Limited, Delhi vs. Jao, Delhi

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

ITA 1628/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Rani Promoter Private Jao Limited Delhi-110001 B-9 Shekhar Appartment, Vs. Delhi-110091 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Permanent Account Number Of Assessee: Aadcr8878D अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant Represented By: Shri Rakesh Kumar Khiwani, Ca ""थ" "ारा/Respondent Represented By: Shri Rajore Satish Chandra Ramsevak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing: 25.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 22.08.2025 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2022 Passed Under Section U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Word ‘Act’ Herein This Order Would Mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed Its Case Ex-Parte & Thus Its Right To Natural Justice Of Being Heard Has Been Violated. The Ld. Counsel Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Compelling Person Reason Were Making Requisite Compliance To The Statutory

For Appellant: AADCR8878D
Section 143(3)