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

Shri Akshay Manoj Pagdhare, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1013/MUM/2026[1013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeakshay Manoj Pagdhare Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai 401, Anant B Bhakti Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East, Kandarpada, Link Road, Mumbai-400051 Dahisar (West) Mumbai- 400068 Pan: Alfpp9823Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2020-21, Date Of Order 04.04.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 21.09.2022. 2 Shri Akshay Manoj Pagdhare 2. When The Appeals Were Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Bench Had Granted Several Opportunities & Adjourned The Matter On Multiple Occasions To Enable The Assessee To Prosecute The Appeal. However, Despite Such Opportunities, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Accordingly, After Considering The Material Available On Record, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Submissions Of The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Rajesh Gupta, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 47(1), New Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed and the impugned reassessment proceedings and consequent assessment are quashed

ITA 280/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklarajesh Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 47(1) 3968-C, First Floor, Drum Shape Building, Naya Bazar, I.P. Estate Building, Delhi – 110006 New Delhi – 110002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapg7542H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manu Gawri, Ca Sh. Madhav Gawri, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 O R D E R Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 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/250/2025-26/1084093412(1) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24.05.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department For Ay: 2017-18. P A G E | 2 Rajesh Gupta (Ay: 2017-18) 2. On Hearing Both Sides We Find That On Account Of Alleged Bogus Sales Addition Was Made Which Has Been Sustained By Ld. Cit(A) But The Issue Canvassed Before Us Is That The Requisite Sanction Of The Prescribed Specified Authority U/S 148A(D) R.W.S 148 Has Not Been Taken & In This Regard, We Find Admittedly Approval U/S 151 Of The Act Has Been Taken From Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Delhi. The Assessment Year Involved Is 2017-18 & In The Light Of Aforesaid Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Case Of Ashish Aggarwal Scc Online Sc 543 For The Relevant Assessment Year The Prescribed Authority To Give Approval Was Pr. Cit. Ld. Dr Could Not Disputed Aforesaid Facts & Proposition Of Law Cited, Thus, We Are Inclined To Sustain Corresponding Ground. The Appeal Of The Assesse Is Allowed & The Impugned Reassessment Proceedings & Consequent Assessment Are Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Gawri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr
Section 147Section 148ASection 151