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

Subir Roy, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 43, Kolkata

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Gopalan Gurusamyassessment Year: 2013-14 Subir Roy Vs. Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata 237, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700028 [Pan: Adipr2564F] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana & Shri Sunil Surana, Ars Respondent By : Shri Nilkanta Chakraborty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2026, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Is An Individual, Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,43,423/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny For The A.Y. 2013-14 & An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29.03.2016. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Came To Be Issued On 31.03.2021 & An Subir Roy; A.Y: 2013-14 Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 28.03.2022 By Making Addition U/S 50C Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.6,57,500/-. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2026, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 26.03.2026, Assessee Preferred The Captioned Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana & Shri Sunil SuranaFor Respondent: Shri Nilkanta Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

Ankit Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(1), Delhi

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

ITA 6789/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanankit Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 35 (1), 2054, Narela Mandi, Delhi. Narela, Delhi – 110 040. (Pan : Atjpa1397C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2026 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 09.04.2026 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal On The Ground That Assessee Has Been Provided Sufficient Opportunities But Assessee Failed To Submit Any Submission Or 2 Evidence During Appellant Proceedings In Support Of Grounds Of Appeal & Remained Non-Compliant & Non-Responsive. He Further Submitted That The Ld. Cit (A) Had Not Adjudicated The Issues On Its Merits. He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Ought To Have Dealt With The Grounds Of Appeal Substantively. He Submitted That There Are Reasons For Assessee For Not Appearing Before The First Appellate Authority & No Effective Opportunity Of Hearing Was Provided To The Assessee. Further, He Submitted That The Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Accordingly, He Prayed That The Issues May Be Remitted Back To Ld. Cit(A) With The Prayer To Give An Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147