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

Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 4, Veraval

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

ITA 763/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 763/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta, Ito, Ward 4, Veraval C-276, Mathura Nagri, Sun Pharma Vs. Income Tax Office, Road, Opp. Panghat Complex, Yogeshwar Bhavan, Vadodara, Gujarat -390001 Veraval, Gujarat -362265 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auipk4596K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Om Kanabar. Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2026 : 30/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 27.12.2024. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly By 75 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay, In Filing Appeal. The Learned Counsel Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta

For Appellant: Shri Om Kanabar. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 80G

Nirmal Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Guwahati

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/GTY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Gopalan Gurusamyassessment Year: 2014-15 Nirmal Kumar Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Guwahati C/O Mr. Kanishk Rana, Advocate, 112, Hans Bhawan, Wing-2, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110002 [Pan: Abppj2671] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kanishk Rana, Ar Respondent By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09 .2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 03.10.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 522 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Contending That The Notice Of Hearing Has Been Issued To The Wrong E-Mail Id Of The Assessee, Therefore, Assessee Could Not Participate In The First Appellate Proceedings & The Assessee Was Unaware Of Passing The Order Impugned & Came To Know Only While Nirmal Kumar Jain; A.Y.: 2014-15 Checking The Tax Portal On 20.05.2026. Further Contended That Delay Caused In Filing The Appeal Is Not Intentional But For The Bonafide Reason.

For Appellant: Shri Kanishk Rana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 147Section 250