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

Mohd. Akmal, Mau vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 161/VNS/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Mohd Akmal, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Jummana Pura, Kopaganj, Mau- Centre (Nfac), Delhi 225305 Pan: Amupa0225D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 17.06.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 13.02.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “(1) Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Solely For Non-Prosecution, Without Adjudicating On Merits Or Considering The Detailed Grounds & Facts Already On Record & Without Allowing Effective Opportunity Of Hearing, Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. (2) In Any Case, It Is A Law Well Settled That Any Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Deciding The Merits Of The Objections Raised & Evidence Already On Record, Is Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed. (3) Proceedings Under Section 147 Have Neither Been Validly Initiated Nor Concluded In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law, Which Has The Effect Of Rendering The Assessment Order Dated 13.02.2025 As A Whole, Vitiated.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

Shri Vasant Manji Thacker, Bhuj vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 767/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Shri Vasant Manji Thacker Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), 15/16 Halaji Bunglow, College Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Road Opposite Mandvi, Octroi, Ashram Road Navrangpura, Bhuj, Gujrat- 370001 Ahmedabad Gujrat 380009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Abcpt4282E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee, Has Called Into Question Correctness Of Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17, On The Following Grounds: “1. That, The Ld. Pcit Has Wrongly Invoked Provisions Of Section 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Wrongly Held That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. The Ld. Pcit Has Wrongly Passed Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Vasant Manji Thacker

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263