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

Naseem Ishrat, Jhansi vs. ITO.Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi, Up

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Naseem Ishrat Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 81, Sangam Vihar Colony, Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi. Vs. Sipri Bazar, Jhansi (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpi-5615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 30-11-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 30-05-2023. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Under The Head Capital Gains & Determined Total Income At Rs.103.50 Lacs. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit First Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 77 Days. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 24 Days In The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Has Prayed For Adjudication Of The Appeal On Merits Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR
Section 147

Malti Devi, Etawah vs. Assessing Officer 2 (2)(5) Etawah, Etawah

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 563/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.563/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Ms. Malti Devi Assessing Officer, बनाम/ 198, Civil Lines, 2(2)(5), Etawah. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aldpd-2771M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 19-11-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 15-09-2021. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.28.86 Lacs For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment For The Same Very Reasons. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Stated That The Assessee Is In A Position To Substantiate Its Case & Accordingly, Prayed For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities Which Has Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Lata Devi Maheshwari, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer, Guna

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.562/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) बनाम/ Ms. Lata Devi Maheshwari Income-Tax Officer 1, Hanuman Gali, Guna (Mp) Guna. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpm-7016-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 24-10-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29-03-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.24.24 Lacs For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment For The Same Very Reasons. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Stated That The Assessee Is In A Position To Substantiate Its Case & Accordingly, Prayed For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities Which Has Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Nitesh Goyal, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Shivpuri

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 426/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shri Nitesh Goyal Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Goyal Complex, Sadar Bazar, Shivpuri. Vs. Shivpuri (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afhpg-8587J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 22-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 26-03-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Determined Total Income At Rs.225.67 Lacs After Various Additions For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same Substantially For The Same Very Reasons. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 159 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Ravi Singh, Morar Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/AGR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.204/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2020-21) Shri Ravi Singh Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Nh-44, Gwalior Bye Pass, Ward 2(2), Gwalior. Near Toll Tax, Dongarpur, Vs. Morar (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apmpg-2567-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. S.C. Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 29-11-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 13-09-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Disallowed Deduction U/S 54B For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment For The Same Very Reasons. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Pleaded For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 119 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54B

Akhlesh Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 13/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.13/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Akhilesh Pandey Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 188/189, Line No. 2 Gwalior. Vs. Birla Nagar, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpp-7494-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.20.32 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Resident Individual Is Stated To Be Engaged In Business In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Dhruv Constructions. The Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 31-05-2017 Accepting The Returned Income. However, The Case Was Reopened On The Ground That The Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. One Of The Issues To Be Examined

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148