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. M. S Luvish Infotech Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle -2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8993/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. M.S. Acit, Circle – 2(2)1, Luvishinfotech Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai, Cts 102/2, Sai Armaa, Maharashtra- 400020 Raut Lane, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadcm4966H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Mansvi Singh Revenue By Shri Annavaramkosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] Dated 14.10.2025 For 2 Luvish Infotech Projects Pvt Ltd. Assessment Year 2019–20 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act Dated 11.03.2025. Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Leasing Commercial Property. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessment Was Reopened Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing That Certain Parties Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Invoices Without Actual Supply Of Goods Or Services. On The Basis Of Such Information, Proceedings Under Section 148A Were Initiated & Thereafter Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued On 12.04.2023. During The Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Purchases Aggregating To Rs. 54,04,045/- From Two Parties, Namely:  M/S Ketan Suresh Bhawar – Rs. 24,91,000/-  M/S Manoj Kumar Varada Ram – Rs. 29,13,045/- These Parties Were Allegedly Identified As Non-Genuine Entities Issuing Accommodation Bills.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Karamjit Singh, Sirhind vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Sirhind Range

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 636/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Karamjit Singh Through L/H Ito Ms. Kawaljit Kaur New Libra Building बनाम/ Vs. M/S Wasan Agencies, Sirhind Railway Road, Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab – 140406 Punjab – 140406 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aegps-4448-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Neha (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual Mode) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11-05-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 03-02-2025 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 23-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Addition Of Rs.3,71,367/- Which Represent Travel Package

For Appellant: Ms. Neha (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Manmohan Singh Chawla, Model Town

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 265/CHANDI/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Sh. Manmohan Singh Chawla बनाम/ Room No. 210, 1St Floor, 47-C, Model Town Extension Aaykar Bhawan, Ludhiana - 141001 Vs. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aizps-1586-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Submission Dated 18-04-2026 ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11-05-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 27-12-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 30-05-2023. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee’S Case Was Reopened & Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26-07-2022. The Assessee Filed Part Submissions

For Appellant: Submission dated 18-04-2026For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

Milap Gkg Ripening Chambers, Ambala vs. ITO Ward-4, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1085/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar,Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1085/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Milap Gkg Ripening Chambers Ito Ward – 4 Plot No. 418, Hsidc, Saha Ambala बनाम/ Vs. Ambala City, Ambala Haryana - 133001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawfm-7929-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A) Dated 06.08.2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.03.2022. The Sole Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Addition Of Cash Deposits For Rs.20 Lacs. Having Heard

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

Sucha Singh, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Haryana

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1166/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar,Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1166/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sucha Singh Ito Ward – 1 House No. 129, Village - Thesil Bora Kurukshetra बनाम/ Vs. Post Office, Jandola, Pehowa Kurukshetra Haryana – 136128 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmips-6483-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Momga (Advocate) A/W Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 14-10-2024 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 22-03-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. B.M. Momga (Advocate) a/w Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Ramakant Bhuvan, Khopoli, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

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

ITA 24/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2026 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ramakant Bhuvan, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Radha Niwas, Shivaji Chowk, Shilphata, Khalapur, Raigad, Khopoli, Raigad- 410203. Pan : Aaqfr7951M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kirit Sheth & Shri Vijay Jain Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ground 3 - The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Purchases Without Properly Appreciating Various Documents Furnished Before Him I.E. (A) Purchase Invoices (B) Excise Transport Permits (Form Fl - 1A) (C) Stock Register (D) Quantitative Details Certified By The Tax Auditor In Form 3Cd (E) Suppliers Ledger Account Confirmation. Your Appellant Respectfully Submits That Disallowance Of Purchase From Five Vendors Is Not Called For On Proper Appreciation Of The Above Documents.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sheth &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)