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

Abhishek Banta, Hardwar vs. ITAT, Dehradun

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

ITA 45/DDN/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Abhishek Banta Vs Itat, 1, Near Hotel Rama Dehradun Bench, Krishna, Haridwar Railway Income Tax Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -249401. Pan-Ainpb7304D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Mrinali Sharma, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.11.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.288/2013-14 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 15.05.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Observed That Both The Lower Authorities I.E. The Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Orders Ex-Parte For The Reason Of Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee. In View Of These Facts & In The Interest Of Justice, One More Opportunity Is Provided To The Assessee To Represent Its Case & Accordingly, Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ao To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh. The Assessee Is Directed To Participate In The Remand Proceedings Before The Ao & File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Source Of Cash Deposited Into Bank. With These Directions, All The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 147Section 250

Mohamad Salim Khan, Roorkee vs. CIT (A) &ITO Roorkee, Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohamad Salim Khan Vs Union Of Pathanpura, Roorkee, India/Cit(A)/Ito Distt.-Haridwar, Roorkee Uttarakhand-247663 Uttarakhand Pan-Adupk3527D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.10.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Taken For Hearing In The Absence Of The Ld.Ar & On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Heard The Contention Of Ld.Sr.Dr & Perused The Material Available On Record. We Find That The Addition Of Inr 4,31,000/- Was Made By Invoking The Provision Of Section 50C Of The Act. The Assessee Had Purchased Various Properties During The Year Under Appeal & There Was Difference Between The Sale Consideration As Per Sale Deeds & The Value Determined By The Stamp Valuation Authorities & Since The Difference Was In Excess Of The Tolerance Limit Provided In Section 50C Of The Act. No Satisfactory Explanation Was Tendered Before Us With Respect To Such Difference In Valuation. Thus, Looking To These Facts, We Find No Error In The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao U/S 50C Of The Act. Accordingly Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereby, Upheld.

Section 147Section 250Section 50C