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

Naranbhai Kanabhai Mayatra, Gandhidham vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 96/RJT/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Aug 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 96/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2023-24) Naranbhai Kanabhai Mayatra Acit/Dcit Circle, Plot No-342/A Apna Nagar, Income-Tax Office, Plot No. 32, Vs. Gandhidham Gujrat 370201 Sector No. 3, Near Iffco Colony, Gndhidham Gujrat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Actpm7786Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2026 Order Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 27.11.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 25.03.2025. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Naranbhai Kanabhai Mayatra Principle Of Natural Justice. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Contended That In The Interest Of Justice, Another Opportunity To Contest The Appeal Before The Assessing Officer May Be Granted To The Assessee. The Ld. Counsel Submitted That During The Appellant Proceedings, Assessee Submitted Confirmation & Additional Evidences Before The Ld. Cit(A), Which Has Not Been Admitted By Ld. Cit(A) & Assessee Wants To Submit More Additional Evidences Before Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 250

Mangalam Metals, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar, Gujarat

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

ITA 948/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 948/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 ] Mangalam Metals Income-Tax Officer, Plot No. 3441,Road No. F, Vs. Ward 2(10), Gidc Phase – 3, Dared Aayakar Bhavan, Lalpur Highway, Jamnagar Gujrat 361005 Near Hanuman Temple , At Dared Jamnagar Gujrat 361005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfm9110C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Yogesh, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] 30.06.2026 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Order Dt. 19.12.2022 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144B

Jalaram Enterprise, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Veraval

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

ITA 885/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 885/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Jalaram Enterprise Income Tax Officer Peoples Bank Colony, Ward – 4, Vs. 80 Feet Road, Veraval (Gir Veraval Gujrat - 362266 Somnath) Junagadh Gujrat - 362266 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfj2548P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sarju S. Mehta, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2026 Order Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 13.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2024. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That During The Proceedings Before The Ld.Cit(A), The Assessee Has Submitted Detailed Written Jalaram Enterprise

For Appellant: Shri Sarju S. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Dilipsinh Ranmalsinhji Jadeja, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar

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

ITA 867/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 867/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Dilipbhai Ranmalsinhji Jadeja Income Tax Officer, Tenament No. 8910, Mahavir Ward 2 (10) Vs. Nagar, Ranjitsagar, Jamnagar Aayakar Bhawan,Jamnagar Gujrat 361001 Gujrat 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Badpb1665E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2026 28/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 13.06.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 01.03.2024. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Appeal Has Been Filed Dilipbhai Ranmalsinhji Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250