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

Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1339/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 1, Old Court House Corner Tobacco House, 1St Floor, Room No.104, Kol-700001. [Pan: Aafcr4754E] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate & Nandini Sureka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Rs.Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act & Subsequent Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued As The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Has Sold Immovable Property By Adopting Value Lower Than Stamp Valuation Authority. Accordingly, Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Was Passed By Making An Addition Of Rs.28,36,680/- U/S 43Ca Of The Act Being The Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Sale Consideration Of The Immovable Property.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43C

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2022/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2021/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2020/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P