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

Standard Granites, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 3697/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3697 /Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Standard Granites The Income Tax Officer 5-2-15C Poothaiammal Building Vs. Ward 3, Virudhunagar. Sattur Road, Sivakasi – 626 123. [Pan: Aamfs4952M] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Veerabathran Prasanth, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 08.10.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16 Against The Order U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Virudhunagar (In Short ‘Ao’), Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Emanating From The Records Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Carrying On Quarry & Related Business In Earlier

For Appellant: Shri. Veerabathran Prasanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 69

Peshuram Lilaram Mulchandani, Veraval vs. The Income Tax Officer, Veraval

ITA 230/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.229 & 230/Rjt/2026 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2019-2020 Peshuram Lilaram Mulchandani The Ito, 2Nd Floor Tower Chowk Verval बनाम/ Ward-4 Junagadh Vs Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. Sadguru Arcade, Veraval Gujarat-362265 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoupm6150R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 147 R.Ws. 144B Of The Act & A Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Peshuram Lilaram Mulchandani, Veraval vs. The Income Tax Officer, Veraval

ITA 229/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.229 & 230/Rjt/2026 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2019-2020 Peshuram Lilaram Mulchandani The Ito, 2Nd Floor Tower Chowk Verval बनाम/ Ward-4 Junagadh Vs Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. Sadguru Arcade, Veraval Gujarat-362265 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoupm6150R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 147 R.Ws. 144B Of The Act & A Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)