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

Jitendra Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 233/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Jitendra Vanigota Vs. Ito, Ward 20(2)(1) 76, New Municipal Piramal Chambers Building, Shuklaji Mumbai. Street, Kamathipura Mumbai-400 008. Pan : Abopj3841P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Siddharth Kothari Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2020 – 21 Dated 28/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/4/2023 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Regularly Assessed To Income Tax. During The Year The Assessee Has Shown Income In The Form Of Remuneration, Interest On Capital & Share Of Profit From Partnership Firm. The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/12/2024 At A Total Income Of ₹ 12,50,380/–. 3. Assessee Has Entered Into An Agreement With The Builder In The Year 2013 To Purchase Of Flat. This Flat Was Registered On 22/11/2019 & The Value Of The Said Flat Was Taken At Rs 183,20,000. The Market Value Of The Said Flat Is ₹ 25,264,500/– Thus There Was A Difference Of ₹

Section 143Section 144BSection 56

Miho Kikuchi, Thiruvannamalai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed subject to above direction and modification in the order

ITA 1318/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1318/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Miho Kikuchi, The Principal Commissioner No.25, Chengam Road, Vs. Of Income Tax-8, Fourth Street, Chennai. Thiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Bdepm 5316B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr. L. Natarajan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay, Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -8 In Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063189420 (1) Dated 22.03.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Framed By Ao Of National Faceless Assessment Centre Vide Order Dated 27.03.2022 U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Which Are Factual, Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay, Baran Som, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)