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

Shree Jyotiriling Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sangli

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

ITA 52/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Jyotirling Gramin Bigar Sheti Ito, Ward – 3, Sangli Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Opp. Palus Sahakari Bank M Palus Vs. Post. Palus Sangli-416310 Pan : Aagas1359F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

Pegasus Event and Convention Services, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-7, Pune

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

ITA 186/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Pegasus Event & Convention Services, Assistant Commissioner Services E 1/5 Phase Ii, Cibercity, Of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Haveli, Pune H.O., Pune-411001 Vs. Pune Pan : Aaifp8920C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.11.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.22,93,281/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For Under-Reporting Of Income Vide His Order Dated 19.08.2025. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Did Not Furnish Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For Ay 2020-21. Based On The Information Flagged On Insight Portal By The Directorate Of Income Tax (Systems), Cbdt, It Was Found That The Substantial Income Of The Assessee Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment For The Ay 2020-21. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Following The Mandated Procedure In Law. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee With The Prior Approval Of The Specified Authority. In Response To 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 274

Pratibha and Pratik Associates, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2723/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2677 & 2723/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pratibha & Pratik Associates, Income Tax Officer, 247/18 E Prithviprasad, Ward – 2(1), Kolhapur Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416003 Vs. Pan : Aaofp8008R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.10.2025 & 13.10.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ay”) 2015-16. In Ita No. 2677/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Quantum Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Whereas Ita No. 2723/Pun/2025 Is Filed Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271)1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”). For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That For Ay 2015-16, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income. Based On The Information Available With The Department, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Made Transactions Of Tds Return Payment To Contractor (Section 194C) Of Rs.4,29,67,200/- During Ay 2015-16 Which Has Not Been Reported Due To Non-Filing Of Return By The Assessee. The Case Of The Assessee Was Thus

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271

Pratibha and Pratik Associates, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2677/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2677 & 2723/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pratibha & Pratik Associates, Income Tax Officer, 247/18 E Prithviprasad, Ward – 2(1), Kolhapur Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416003 Vs. Pan : Aaofp8008R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.10.2025 & 13.10.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ay”) 2015-16. In Ita No. 2677/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Quantum Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Whereas Ita No. 2723/Pun/2025 Is Filed Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271)1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”). For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That For Ay 2015-16, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income. Based On The Information Available With The Department, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Made Transactions Of Tds Return Payment To Contractor (Section 194C) Of Rs.4,29,67,200/- During Ay 2015-16 Which Has Not Been Reported Due To Non-Filing Of Return By The Assessee. The Case Of The Assessee Was Thus

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271