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

Kamalakannan Arumugam, Sakthivinayagapuram Melur, Tuticorin vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tuticorin

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

ITA 3641/CHNY/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3640 & 3641/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18, Kamalakannan Arumugam, V. Income Tax Officer, No.111/66/29D, Sksr Colony, Ward-2, Sakthivinayagapuram Melur, Tuticorin. Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu-628 002. [Pan: Anfpk7300R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan & Ms. Karishma, Advocates, Ld. Ars. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 14.05.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grouds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan & MsFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 50C

Kamalakannan Arumugam, Sakthivinayagapuram Melur, Tuticorin vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tuticorin, Income Tax Office

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

ITA 3640/CHNY/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3640 & 3641/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18, Kamalakannan Arumugam, V. Income Tax Officer, No.111/66/29D, Sksr Colony, Ward-2, Sakthivinayagapuram Melur, Tuticorin. Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu-628 002. [Pan: Anfpk7300R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan & Ms. Karishma, Advocates, Ld. Ars. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 14.05.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grouds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan & MsFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 50C

Sangrahalaya Timber and Crafts Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Guwahati

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed on merit as well as on legal issue

ITA 89/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Aug 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Sangrahalaya Timber & Crafts Limited………….………………………….Appellant 2Nd Floor, 5, Gorky Terrace, Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata [Pan No. Aaccs8848P] Vs. Ito Ward 2(2)…………………………………………………………………………... Respondent Guwahati, Assam- 781005 Appearances By: S.P. Bhati, Fca,.Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. M.C. Omi Mingshen, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 22 July, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 25 ,2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 27.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Passed U/S 147 Of The Assessment Year 2018-19 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A’]. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Is That The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened & Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022. The Assessment Proceedings Were Completed & Order Was Passed U/S. 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21/03/2023 At An Assessed Income Of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit By Invoking The Provision Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Loan Taken From M/S. Aneri Fincap Limited. The Demand Raised On Assessed Income Is Rs. 1,75,67,760/- As Specified On Demand Notice Dated 21.03.2023. Aggrieved By The Said Order Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed.

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68