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

Malaiyalagu Chinnakombiah, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1249/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Malaiyalagu Chinnakombiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/44, Lakshmi Marketing, Vs. Ward 1, Tuticorin. Inammaniachi Kovilpatti, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu-628502 [Pan: Ahwpc 6728Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca IjथG की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 15.02.2024 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 18.09.2021. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Showing Total Income Of Rs. 3,02,557/- & Assessment :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 44A

Chinmay Impex Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 564/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) िनधा"रण वष" Chinmay Impex Private Income Tax Officer बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Ward – 1(1)(3), Limited Vs. C/O. M. S. Chhajed & Co. Ahmedabad Ca, “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc6478J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. S. Chhajed, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2024 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,79,950/-. Subsequently, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai That Assessee Had Entered Into Reversal

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

Mafaji Umedaji Jat, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 940/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.940/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mafaji Umedaji Jat The Income Tax Officer At Rampura बनाम/ Ward-1 Po Rampura, Tal.Deesa Palanpur 385 001 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 535 Dist. Banaskantha (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akipj 4846 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/09/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Read With Mafaji Umedaji Jat Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Sambalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.50/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Khetrajpur, Balmukund Dora Lane, Sambalpur-768003 Pan No. :Aakpt 1711 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Passed U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 18.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2015. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2021 & The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 28.03.2022. Thereafter The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Found The Said Order Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Revised The Said Order Wherein He Has Enhanced The Income Of The Assessee By Rs.4,02,90,000/- On Account Of Addition U/S.68 Of The Act. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Present Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 68