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

George Thomas, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 808/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 George Thomas .......... Appellant Kurissummoottil Mukkalli, Parathodu Edakkunnam, Kottayam 686512 [Pan: Afypt6697M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prasanth Srinivas Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Agricultural Income. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 05.01.2021 Declaring Nil Income Showing Agricultural Income Of Rs. 26,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of 2 George Thomas Rs. 32,00,000/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Entire Receipts Shown From Agriculture Of Rs. 32,00,000/- For The Failure Of The Appellant To Discharge The Onus Of Proving He Agricultural Income.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanth SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144

The Ezhumzttoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pathanmthitta vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 778/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ezhumattoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 7-392, Ezhumattoor P.O., Malappally Pathanamthitta 689586 [Pan: Aafat6575K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Pooja V.M., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 30.12.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 25,120/- After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of 2 Ezhumattoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 27.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 57,08,630/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P In Respect Of Interest Income Of Rs. 56,83,510/- Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Totgar’S Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. V. Ito [2010] 322 Itr 283 (Sc).

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja V.M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 754/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [Pan: Arapp8842J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lokanathan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2016-17. As Per The Information Flagged In Accordance With The Risk Management Strategy Formulate By The Cbdt & Evidence In Possession, The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property In Ay 2015- 16 For A Consideration Of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly, The 2 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issues A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 06.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 05.04.2023 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 45,73,680/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 45,61,180/- On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1790/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1790/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito Ward-37(1), Kolkata 123/2, A.P.C.Road, Manicktala Kolkata-700006 Pan No. :Acupj 2854 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rip Das, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09.06.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Transaction U/S.69C Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.10.2018 For The A. Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,49,390/-. The Ao Had Received Information That The Assessee Was One Of The Beneficiary Of Bogus Transactions Made In The Form Of Fictitious Purchases & Bogus Billing From The Parties Like Hiraani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd; Niraj Nathani To The Tune Of Rs.14,50,800/- During The F.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Was The Recipient Of Irregular Input Tax Credit Amounting To Rs.14,50,800/-During The Fy 2017-18 Relevant To The A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1298/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR