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

Sail Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

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

ITA 318/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Sail Employees Cooperative Housing Society………………………...Appellant Sunaina Khaitan, Savitri Enclave Karamtoli, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 [Pan: Aahas8163J] Vs. Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi………….………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 16, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 As Required U/S 139 Of The Act. Subsequently, Information Was Received By The Department That The Assessee Had Entered Into Transaction Involving Sale Of Immovable Property Aggregating Of Rs.39,39,72,325/- Comprising Of Two Properties Sold At Rs.31,04,28,281/- & 08,35,44,044/- Respectively. Based On Such Information Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To File Its Return Of Income, However, There Was No Compliance Sail Employees Cooperative Housing Society From The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued But The Assessee Again Failed To Respond. In View Of The Persistent Non-Compliance, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex-Parte U/S 147 R.W.S 144 & 144B Of The Act, Determining The Total Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.39,39,72,325/-

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Ahasan Ali, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

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

ITA 7662/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalahasan Ali, Income Tax Officer, Near Mandir, Gram Hariyabans, Ward-3(3)(3), Pheraheri, Saharanpu, Vs. Saharanpur. Uttar Pradsh-247001. Pan-Ayqpa4182M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10376054 Dated 07.10.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.02.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act By Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Heard The Parties. None Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee. From The Perusal Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Observed That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, Assessee Filed Statement Of Facts Alongwith Appeal Memo, Wherein It Is Stated That On The Date Fixed For Hearing On 01.10.2025, Detailed Submission On The First Ground Of Appeal Was Filed Challenging Ahasan Ali Vs. Ito The Legality Of Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148/148A Of The Act. It Was Further Also Requested That Submissions On Other Grounds Will Be Submitted Within 15 Days. However, Ld. Cit(A) Without Even Adjudicating The Legal Ground Of Appeal Or Referring To The Written Submissions Made By The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal By Observing That The Assessee Has Not Filed Written Submission Despite Several Requests. It Is Further Observed That The Assessment Order Was Also Exparte As The Assessee Has Not Made Any Compliance Before The Ao Also.

Section 147Section 148Section 250