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

Tnq Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as far as amount of Rs

ITA 1426/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1426/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Tnq Technologies Private Limited. V. Income Tax Officer, No.509, 510, 510A Chaitanya Imperial Corporate Ward-3(1), B-Block, 3Rd F1 Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aadct6066B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V. Ravichandran, F.C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Addl. / Jcit(A)-1, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Nashik Dated 16.01.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal 1) The Adjustments Are Unjustified Since The Scope Of Adjustments In Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Is Limited To Apparent Errors Or Incorrect Claims. 2) The Variation Between The Income Assessed As Per Impugned Intimation & The Returned Income Is Unjustified. 3) The Adjustment Made In The Said Impugned Intimation Is Illegal Since The Proviso To Section 143(1) (A) Requires That An Intimation Be Given To The Assessee Of Any Proposed Adjustment. Tnq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 4) The Variation In The Impugned Intimation Is Unjustified Since On The Very Same Day An Assessment U/S 143(3) Was Made After The Scrutiny Of The Accounts.

For Appellant: Mr. V. Ravichandran, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Ayodhya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3703/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3703/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ayodhya Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 3/11, Seshachala Vs. Corporate Ward 1(3) Gramini Garden Street Chennai. Sathangadu, Chennai – 600 119 [Pan: Aaacv2495B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06. 2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.11.2025 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 23.12.2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(3) Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-Nfac Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Pvp Ventures Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Crop Ward -5(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/CHNY/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1837/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Pvp Ventures Limited The Income Tax Officer Krm Centre, 9Th Floor Vs. Corporate Ward 5(2) No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chepet, Chepet S.O. Chennai – 600 031. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Aaacs3101P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.M.Lavanya, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06. 2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 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 18.12.2006 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 5(2) Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. :-2-: Ita. No:1837/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms.M.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

Ab Rephcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2629/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalab Rephcons Income Tax Officer, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1(1), (Non-Existing Entity Vs. New Delhi-11 Through Ex-Director Mr. Sachin Nagar) Pan-Aagca4141D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 29/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 15.01.2026 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. It Is Observed That The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act Whereas The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 19.02.2024 Has Already Been Set Aside By The Ld. Cit(A) To Ab Rephcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito The File Of The Ao For Fresh Consideration In Terms Of The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 03.03.2025. As The Order In Which The Present Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated Has Been Set Aside To The Ao For Fresh Assessment, The Consequent Penalty Proceedings Has No Legs To Stand And, Therefore, Penalty So Levied U/S 271Aac (1) Of The Act Is Hereby Deleted. However, The Ao Is At Liberty To Re-Initiate The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act, If The Circumstances Suggested So In The Set Aside Assessment Proceedings. With This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271A

Shpl Enterprises Private Limited, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 1, Varanasi

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

ITA 31/VNS/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi30 Jun 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Shpl Enterprises Private Limited, Vs Acit, C-27/273, C-13, Indian Press Range-1, Varanasi Colony Maldahiya, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221002 Pan: Aahcs6003K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vipul Khandhar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 27.12.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Ito Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of It Act, 1961 Which Is Requested To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Ito Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.18687945/- Being Sale Consideration Of Penny Stock U/S 68 Of It Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Ito Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.373759/-Being Commission As Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The It Act, 1961.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 11.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rupees Nil & The Case Was Completed

For Appellant: Sh. Vipul Khandhar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Gaurav Tripathi, Gorakhpur vs. Dc/ACIT - 1, Gorakhpur

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

ITA 187/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi30 Jun 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi, Vs Dc/Acit-1, 296, Rapti Nagar Phase 4, Gorakhpur Chargawan, Gorakhpur, (U.P.) 273001 Pan: Affpt3378G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanchit Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 28.08.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Of The Assessment Year 2015-16 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 25.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals Dated Was Not In Accordance Of Law & Facts & Was Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs 11,05,466/- As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Out Of Rs 64,21,943/-Which Was Made From Legal Sources. 2. That The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals Was Not In Accordance Of Law & Facts & Was Not Justified In Calculating Tax On Income On Gross Salary Over Rs. 19,82,362/Instead Of Net Salary (After Deductions) On Rs. 14,29,810/-. 3. That The Penalty Proceeding Under Section 271 (1) (C). 271 (1) (B) Maybe Stayed, Till The Disposal Of This Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanchit Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 658/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 658/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(1)(1) 305-A Convention Center Opp Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot Icici Bank Yagnik Road Rajkot Gujrat 360001 Gujrat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpm7081P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2026 30/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section-250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 15.04.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Read With Section144B Of The Act, Dated 13.03.2024. Ita No.658/Rjt/2026 [ Ay 2022-23 ] Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta V. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144B