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

Punnayurkulam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No P 417, Punnayurkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 512/COCH/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2022-23 Punnayurkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Punnayurkulam, Thrissur 679561 [Pan: Aacap6129J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Guruvayur......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri M. Ramdas, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 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 Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Punnayurkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2022-23 Was Filed On 01.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 71,77,582/-. While Doing So, The Ao Had Denied Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act Of Rs. 71,77,582/- In Respect Of Interest Income Received From Co-Operative Banks & Other Banks By Holding That Such Income Is Assessable As ‘Income From Other Sources’.

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3(1) Cbe, Coimbatore vs. Ksk Cold Storage, Mettupalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3330/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3330/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Cold Storage, Non Corporate Ward 3(1), 685, Jadayampalayam Village, Coimbatore. Mettupalayam, Coimbatore 641 301. [Pan:Aarfk3964G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By None : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Pers.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Appellant-Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 30.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. Further, The Notice Issued By This Tribunal To The Assessee Returned Unserved With An Endorsement “No Such Person In This Address”. Therefore, The Assessee Is Called Absent & Set Exparte & We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69