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

Khalsa Model Senior Secondary School, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 483/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Khalsa Model Senior Secondary School....………..............................……….……Appellant 135, B T Road, Kol700108. [Pan: Aaaak3070F] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata…..….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shrip. K. Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :June 11, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :June 25Th,2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.12.2025Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For The A.Y 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal In Limine Without Deciding The Issues On Merits By Not Condoning The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Find That In Form 35, The Assessee Submitted The Reasons For The Delay Before The Ld. Cit(A) But The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider & Condone The Delay & Decided The Issue On Merits Which Is In Violation Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. The Ld. Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed All The Documents Before The Assessing Officer However The Assessing Officer Did Not Consider The Same & Framed The Assessment U/S 144/144B Of The Act. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & In The Interest Of Justice, Restore The Issues In The Appeal To The File Of The Assessing Officer With A Direction To Re-Adjudicate The Issues Afresh On Merits After Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Assessing Officer Is Also Directed To Pass A Speaking Order In Accordance With Law.

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)