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

Aman Ghai Legal Heir of Late Sh Anil Kumar Ghai, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 51(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7227/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7227/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2016-17) Aman Ghai Legal Heir Of Late Shri Anil Kumar Ghai, 5006/5, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaopg-1743-L बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(1), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri Suresh Gupta, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessment Order Dated 10.05.2023 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Is Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed In The Name Of A Dead Person.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Jasaram Kesramji Rathod, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 5687/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 Jasaram K. Rathod, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.1, Plot No.391, Ward-28(1)(1), Saidham Building, Vs. It Office, Sector 19, Opp: Jimmy Tower, Vashi Railway Station Building, Kopar Khairne, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan : Aacpc3348K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pritam Kulapkar, Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23-07-2025 Impugned Herein Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short „Nfac‟)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short „Ld. Commissioner‟) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income Of Rs. 16,97,210/-By Filing His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On Dt. 01-11-2013, Which Was Subsequently Reopened For Re-Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act, Mainly On The Reason That The Assessee Though Made Cash Payment Of Rs. 22,50,000/-For Purchase Of Land With Shri Mahesh M. Munde & 11 Others, But Has Not Offered The Same For Taxation For The Ay. 2013-14. 2 3. The Assessee In Response Filed His Return Of Income On 05-01-2022, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,97,210/-As Declared Originally. The Said Return Filed By The Assessee Was Declared/Considered As Belated And/Or Filed After The Stipulated Time Given In The Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act I.E., Within Thirty Days And, Therefore, The Same Was Treated As „Nonest’ & Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Finalized U/S. 144 Of The Act Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs. 22,50,000/- By Passing The Assessment Order Dt. 29-03-2022 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pritam Kulapkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

Suresh Kumar Chawla, Kanta Khaturia Colony vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1101/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalsuresh Kumar Chawla, Income Tax Officer, Kanta Khaturia Colony, Ward-1(2), B-43, Rajsthan-334001. Vs. Rajasthan. Pan-Adppc6555J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (‘The Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 30.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10171438 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 16.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Heard The Ld. Sr. Dr & Perused The Materials Available On Record. It Is Prayed By The Assessee That Inadvertently Two Appeals Were Filed, One At The Original Jurisdiction Of The Assessee At Jodhpur Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Registered As Ita No.414/Jodh/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) & Due To Technical Error, The Other Appeal Is Filed Before The Delhi Benches Which Is Present Appeal Before Us. It Is Requested By The Assessee That The Appeal Be Transferred To Jodhpur Bench, Suresh Kumar Chawala Vs. Ito However, Looking To The Facts That The Correct Appeal Has Already Been Listed Before The Jodhpur Bench, Therefore, The Present Appeal Being Duplicate & Hereby Dismissed. The Assessee Is Directed To Pursue To Original Appeal Filed Before The Jodhpur Bench For The Captioned Assessment Year.

Section 143(3)Section 250