Section 147 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.279

Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 279 (Income escaping assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 279 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 147 is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 49,210 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 147

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Judgments on Section 147

M/S. Shiva Rubber Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA is allowed

ITA 2212/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2002-03 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Shiva Rubber Industries, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon. Hari Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaefs 7721G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 11.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eight Grounds Of Appeal, I.E., The Legal Grounds As Well As Grounds On Merit. “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing Impugned Assessment Order Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Serving The Mandatory Notices Under Sections 142(1), 148 & 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing Impugned Assessment Order Without Complying The Mandatory Conditions Of Section 147 To 153 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Reopening Of The Case Is Bad In Law & Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing The Impugned Assessment Being Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Void Ab Initio.” 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Offbeat Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3723/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Dcit-Cc-8(4), M/S. Offbeat Developers Pvt 6Th Floor, R.No. 658, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Phoenix Mills Premises 462, Mumbai – 400 020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaco5140L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Mrs. Beena Santosh, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shloka Shah सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Is The Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)Dated 29.2.2016 For The Ay 2009-10. In The Grounds, Revenue Raised The Issue Relating To The Relief Granted By The Cit(A) On Account Of The Notional Interest & The Commission Payments Incurred By The Assessee In Connection With The Bogus Purchases Offered By The Assessee During The Survey Proceedings. 2. Narrating The Facts, Ld Counsels For The Assessee & The Revenue Submitted That There Was Survey Action On 5.7.12 On The Assessee & Discovered The Fact Of Suspicious Purchase Of Material From The Suppliers. Assessee Offered The Same To The Revenue & There Is No Issue Relating To The Bogus Purchases Amounting Rs 5.91 Cr From 4 Suppliers. In The Re-Assessment U/S 147 R W S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Made Addition On Accounts Of The Interest Expenditure Relatable To The Said Investment In The Said Purchases & Also The Estimated Commission Expenditure Of Rs 11,81,832/- 2% Of The Said Rs 5.51 Cr Relating To The Same. The Cit(A) Granted Relief In This Regard. Aggrieved With The Above, The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Grounds Relating To The Said Commission & Interest.

For Appellant: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Shloka Shah
Section 147

M/S Stainless International (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Ld. I.T.O. Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2085/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2085/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Stainless International Vs. I.T.O. Ward 5(1) Kolkata, (P) Ltd. 5A, N.C. Dutta P-7, Chowringhee Square, Sarani, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamcs5299N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Anitabh Bhattacharya, Addl.Cit-Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Gaurav Mathur, Adv. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.170/Cit(A)-2/15-16, Dated 18.08.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.03.2015. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Has Submitted Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2010 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.2,62,872/-. The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 16.04.2011. Subsequently, It Has Been Brought To The Notice Of The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Company Had Made Bogus Purchases From 1) Bhagyalaxmi Steel Industries 2) Jineshawar Trading Company 3) Kushal

For Appellant: Gaurav Mathur, AdvFor Respondent: Anitabh Bhattacharya, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69C