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

Janardhan Kapur, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Janardhan Kapur, Vs Ito, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ward-29(1), Chartered Accountants, Delhi. C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aojpk8128G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 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/2018-19/10092978 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 23.09.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits The Assessee Has Raised Ground No.2. This Ground Was Not Raised Before The Cit(A). However, Before Us, A Separate Application Is Moved Requesting To Raise This As An Additional Ground. Considering That The Ground No. 2 Questions The Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Pass Final Assessment Order & Can Be Decided On The Basis Of Admitted Facts, The Same Is Admitted. 3. The Ground No.2 As Raised Is Reproduced Below:- “That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Was Without Jurisdiction, Null & Void Since No Prior Draft Assessment Order As Required Under Section 144C(1) Was Passed & Provided To The Appellant Being A Non- Resident & “Eligible Assessee” As Per Section 144C(15)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)

Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Anjar - Kutch vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 113/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.113& 114/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Kutch Dist. Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. C/O Apmc Premises, Versamedinaka, Near Railway Crossing, Anjar, Kukch-370 110 Vs. Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaak 9845 N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, A.Μ: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2018-19 & Ay 2020-21, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac'), Both Dated 09.01.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act'), Which In Turn Arose, Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 05.03.2021 & 25.9.2022, Respectively. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, We Have Clubbed These Appeals & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)