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

Ashish Batra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5967/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Ashish Batra Vs Ito R-11/185, Rajnagar Ward-2(1)(1) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan-Ahkpb2206J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Seeking To Assail The First Appellate Order Dated 09.12.2024 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referred To Letter Dated 06.03.2025 & Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed Declaration In Form 1 In Order To Avail “The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (Dtvsv) Scheme, 2024”. Form 2 Has Also Been Issued By The Income Tax Department. The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Thus Sought Withdrawal Of The Captioned Appeal. 3. The Ld. Sr. Dr For The Revenue Stated That He Has No Objection To Withdraw The Appeal As Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee. 4. In The Light Of Oral/Written Request Made On Behalf Of The Assessee, The Captioned Appeal Is Dismissed. However, In The Event, The Assessee Fails To Avail The Benefit Of Dtvsv Scheme For Any Bonafide Reasons, Then The Assessee Concerned Shall Be At Liberty To Seek Restoration Of Original Appeal For Hearing Before Itat In Accordance With Law. 5. In The Result, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 09Th April, 2025. (Pradip Kumar Kedia)

Acestar Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.683/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & S.A. No. 37/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No. 683/Chny/2025] Acestar Properties Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 12, South Mada Street, Corporate Ward 1(1), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan: Aafca7237B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT

Scan Indurstries Private Limited, Sundargarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.102/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Scan Industries Private Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Q1, Civil Township, Rourkela Pan No. :Aeops 8527 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. K. Poddar, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr. Cit, Sambalpur U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1060101431(1). 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That Before The Ld Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, In Response To Show Cause Notice U/S.263 Of The Act, The Assessee Had Categorically Submitted That The Original Assessment Order, Which Was Passed U/S.147/144B Of The Act Dated 30.3.2022 Itself Was Bad In Law, Insofar As The Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued Only On 1.4.2021 & Not On 31.3.2021, Which Was The Last Date For Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. Ld Ar Drew Our Attention To Page 20 Of Written

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263