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

Pramod Kumar, Kurdi, Manglour vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Dehradun

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

ITA 4/DDN/2026[2022 2023]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Pramod Kumar Vs Cit Appeal Kurdi Manglour, Manglaur, Karanpur Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Awopk3370R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Nidhi Saini, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Found From Record That This Appeal Is Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A) As The Same Was Filed Delayed. The Claim Of The Assessee Is That Assessment Order Was Physically Served On 13.09.2024 & The Appeal Was Filed On 21.01.2024 Therefore, There Was No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Not Appreciated These Facts. We Condoned The Delay If Any, In Filing First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Matter To Ao As The Assessment Order Is Also Passed U/S 144 Of The Act. The Assessee Is Directed To File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Claim Made. Ao Is Directed To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee. With These Directions, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 144Section 250

Horrawala Kishan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Lamited Horrawala, Dehradun vs. I T O, Ward- 1 (1)(1), Dehradun

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

ITA 34/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Horrawala Kisan Sewa Vs Ito Sahkari Samiti Limited Ward-1(1)(1) Horrawal, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Aagfh4362L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sushil Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. Both The Orders Of Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Are Ex-Parte For The Reason Of Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee. Looking To The Facts Of The Case & 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

Soban Singh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/DDN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Soban Singh, Vs Dcit Anand Nagar, Balawala Circle-1(1)(1) Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Djfps8212B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Abhinav Vijh, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363960 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. From The Perusal Of The Table Reproduced At Page 12 Of Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Containing The Party-Wise Details Of Rent Paid During The Previous Year, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Paid Rent To Total Six Parties In Cash Every Month & The Payment Made To Each Individual Owner Was Below The Maximum Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Of Inr 10,000/-. The Ao Has Wrongly Considered The Gross Amount Of Rent Paid To All The Landlords As In Violation Of Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. Since The Rent Paid To Each Individual Land Owner Was Below Inr 10,000/- On Each Occasion, Therefore, Provision Of Section 40A(3) Are Not Applicable. Accordingly, No Disallowance Is Required To Be Made U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. In The Light Of Above Facts, We Delete The Disallowance Made By The Ao. All The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Dehradun Club Limited, Dehradun vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

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

ITA 251/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dehradun Club Limited Vs Addl.Cit/Dcit/ 15, New Survey Road, Asst.Cit, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Circle-1(1)(1), Pan-Aaacd8246L Dehradun Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. The Claim Of The Assessee Is That Cash Was Deposited In The Bank Account During Demonetization Period In Sbn Of Irn 39,50,000/- & The Immediate Source Of The Same Was Out Of The Receipts From Members. However, Neither Before Ao Nor Before Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Has Filed Necessary Details In Support Of This Contention. Thus, In The Interest Of Justice, One More Opportunity Is Provided To The Assessee & The Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ao With The Direction To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period. The Assessee Is Directed To File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Claim Made. With These Directions, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 147Section 250

Rajkamal Agnihotri, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9