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

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai, Muimbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3657/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Vijay Garg, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2303/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Garg, Vs Ito, 96, Raju Ki Kuiya, Ward-1(2)(4), Near Lala Ka Bazar, Meerut. Meerut – 250 002. Pan: Ajzpg0246Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2013-14/10164051 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward- 1(2)(4), Meerut (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 30.03.2021 In The Name Of Vijay Garg, The Assessee, Now Represented By Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Legal Heir, Who Has Filed The Appeal. The Case Of Assessee Is That Shri Vijay Garg Died On 10.10.2012, I.E., Well Before The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Consequently, The Reassessment So Framed In The Name Of The Deceased Vijay Garg Is Vitiated & Has To Be Considered As Non Est In Law. Admittedly, The Notice Was Issued In The Name Of The Deceased Only & Not In The Name Of Any Legal Heir. It Comes Up That When This Reassessment Order Was Challenged Before The Ld.Cit(A), The Nfac Had Merely Examined The Issue Of Late Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148