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

M/S Verma Electric Store, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Dharamshala

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1705/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Verma Electric Store Ito Ward बनाम/ Vs. Dharamshala Road, Kangra Dharamshala Himachal Pradesh – 176001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-1563-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J.S. Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 14-11-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 03-03-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Referred To Various Documents As Placed In The Paper Book. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments & Referred To Report Of Ld. Ao Dated 18-05-

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Vellammal Vairamani, Tuticorin vs. ITO Ward 2, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 342/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.342/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vellammal Vairamani, The Income Tax Officer, 18/1, 2Nd Street, Vs. Ward-2, Chidambara Nagar, Tuticorin. Tuticorin – 628 008. [Pan: Advpv-3897-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 26.03.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2018-19 Against The Reassessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ao, Dated 18.03.2024. 2. At The Threshold, We Observe That There Is A Delay Of 241 Days In The Filing Of The Present Appeal By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Furnished An Affidavit Explaining That The Assessee Is Not Well-Versed In :-2-: Ita. No.342/Chny/2026

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A