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

Rashmi Sponge Iron and Power Industries, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 98/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rashmi Sponge Iron & Power Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tax, 407-408, Ganpati Sadan, Raipur-1, Samta Colony, Raipur Raipur Pan No. : Aaacj2311G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Sh. Simran Bhullar, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Raipur-1, Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Wants To Withdraw The Present Appeal. He Has Also Filed An Application Dated 18.07.2023 For Withdrawal Of The Appeal, Which Is Extracted As Under: “It Is Most Humbly Requested Before This Hon’Ble Bench To Kindly Allow Us To Withdraw The Appeal On Following Facts:- 1) The Proceedings U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Started On 09.08.2021 Relating To Ay 2017-18 During The Pendency Of Re- Assessment Proceeding Already Started On 09.06.2021 U/S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 & Accordingly Was Objection Raised On 08.09.2021 Which Was Not Considered By Ld. Pr. Cit, Raipur & Alongwith Request Of Personal Hearing Made On 18.02.2022 Before Deciding The Case & Passed The Order U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 23.03.2023. (Copies Attached)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Simran Bhullar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 153(3)Section 254Section 263Section 264

Mvr Shippling Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporae Ward-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 705/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.705/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mvr Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Jaffar Syrang Street, Parrys, Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcm4775G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 10.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 80 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Angruraj Saravana Prabu, Pollachi vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 555/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.555/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anguraj Saravana Prabu, Vs. National Faceless Assessment 1/41, Vaikasi Street, Valaikombu, Centre, Delhi. Pollachi 642 103. [Pan:Buups5905D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 27.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 31.12.2018 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.24,22,680/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny With Regard To Non-Furnishing Of Quantitative Details & Business Expenses. The Assessing Officer Issued Notice Under 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144