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

Amar Kishore Singh, Araria vs. Income Tax Officer, Purnea

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed with liberty

ITA 415/PAT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amar Kishore Singh Vs. Ito Ward-3(1), Purnea, Ward No.16, Near Gayatri Bihar Mandir, Araria, Bihar-854311 [Pan: Bwcps6168J] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhagwan Jha, Itp Respondent By : Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Patna (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short) Dated 22.04.2026, Passed U/S 154/264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2022 Making An Addition Of Rs.47,11,000/- U/S 69 Of The Act & Rs.2,55,434/- As Income From Other Sources (Interest). Instead Of Challenging The Assessment Order Before The Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Preferred An Application U/S 264 Of The Act Before The Ld. Pcit, Which Came To Be Dismissed Due To Delay In Latches On 26.09.2025 By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax. Further, Assessee Has Also Filed An Amar Kishore Singh; A.Y.: 2017-18 Application U/S 154 Of The Act Before The Ld. Pcit To ‘Rectify The Error In The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 26.09.2026. The Ld. Pcit Vide Order Dated 22.04.2026, Dismissed The Said Application Of The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 22.04.2026 Passed U/S 154/264 Of The Act, Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Bhagwan Jha, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 264Section 69

Shivling Anna Deshmukhe, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Solapur

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

ITA 2406/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Shivling Anna Deshmukhe, Income Tax Officer, 13 Ab, Market Yard, Ward-2(3), 0735, Vairag, Vs. Mohite Nagar, Maharashtra-413402. Opposite Kinara Hotel, Pan : Aatfs0186N Hotgi Road, Solapur Maharashtra-413004. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Umesh Mali (Virtual) Department By : Ms. Bhavya I.V. Jt.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-09-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2026 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, J.M.: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24-04-2026 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”], U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”), Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, All These Grounds Relate To The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac In Confirming The Addition Of Total Credits Of Rs.4,02,77,870/- In Its Bank Account U/S 69A Of The Act & Addition Of Interest Income Of Rs. 21,331/- & Commission Income Of Rs. 30,632/- Treating The Same As Taxable Income Of The Assessee Under The Head „Income From Other Sources‟ & „Income From Business, Respectively Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Vide His Order Dt. 17.03.2025 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Umesh MaliFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V. Jt.CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A