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

Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 640/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Shri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Vs. Ito/Assessment Unit, Income House No. 7/2, C-Block, Rajajipuram, Tax Department, Lucknow Talkatora, Lucknow-226017 Pan: Arxps1950P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 31.03.2026, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, That Was Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 28.01.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “Ground No. 1-Non-Condonation Of Delay Of 254 Days: Error In Law & On Facts That The Learned Citia)/Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Ground Of Delay Of 254 Days Without Properly Appreciating: (A) The Bona Fide Health Issues Of The Appellant In The Period Immediately Following The Assessment Order, As Narrated In The Statement Of Facts [Annexure-5); (B) His Lack Of Technological Proficiency In Navigating Faceless Proceedings; (C) Non-Updation Of Email/Mobile On The Income Tax Portal Resulting In Non-Receipt Of Intimations; & (D) Bona Fide Reliance On A Tax Consultant Who Failed To Promptly Inform Him Of The Adverse Order All Of Which Individually & Cumulatively Constitute 'Sufficient Cause' Within The Meaning Of Section 253(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 148ASection 253(5)Section 69

Badri Prasad Kedar Nath, Vivek Khand Lucknow vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Lucknow New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/LKW/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Badri Prasad Kedar Nath, Vs. Dy/Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1/11 Vivek Khand, Lucknow Tax-1, Lucknow New 226010, Lucknow Pan: Aadfb9505G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 12.09.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Statistical Purposes, That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Improper & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard & Without Considering The Written Submission Made Before Him. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Adjudicate The Addition Of 77,40,914 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In The Reassessment Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B, Despite The Same Being Specifically Challenged By The Appellant In The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

Urvashi Lalit, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept., NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Urvashi Lalit, Vs. Ito, C7/2, Rajaji Puram, Lucknow Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Pan: Amgpl6865L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 6.02.2026, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Dated 7.02.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Illegal Rejection Of Appeal On Delay That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Rejecting The Appeal Solely On The Ground Of Delay Of 115 Days, Without Properly Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Explaining Such Delay. 2. Failure To Condone Delay Despite Sufficient Cause That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Shown Sufficient, Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay, Which Has Not Been Found To Be False Or Mala Fide & Thus Ought To Have Condoned The Delay In Accordance With Settled Principles Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, DR
Section 147