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

Subramanian Sampath Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 22, Tambaram, Chennai

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

ITA 2586/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2586/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Subramanian Sampath Kumar The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.Durv & Associates Llp Vs. Income-Tax No.10/80, Avm Avenue, 3Rd Street Non-Corporate Circle 22(1) Virugambakkam Tambaram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 092. [Pan: Axyps3964L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Dwarakesh, Ca By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2026 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld. Cit(A)"], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri. S.Dwarakesh, CA by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154

Mariappan Rajendran, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

ITA 2489/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2488-2489/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2019-20 Mariappan Rajendran The Income Tax Officer No.1, Ecr Road Sundaram Vs. Ward 1 Muthupet, Thiruvarur Thiruvarur. Tamil Nadu – 614 706. [Pan: Ajypr5900P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate For Shri. G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. K.Jayaganesh, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"], Both Dated 07.01.2026, Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The :-2-: Ita. Nos:2488-2489/Chny/2026 Ao"] U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Dated 05.03.2024 & U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 04.09.2024, Respectively, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Assessment Proceedings & Are Interconnected, These Appeals Were Heard Together. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & To Avoid Repetition Of Facts, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate for Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K.Jayaganesh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

Mariappan Rajendran, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

ITA 2488/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2488-2489/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2019-20 Mariappan Rajendran The Income Tax Officer No.1, Ecr Road Sundaram Vs. Ward 1 Muthupet, Thiruvarur Thiruvarur. Tamil Nadu – 614 706. [Pan: Ajypr5900P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate For Shri. G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. K.Jayaganesh, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"], Both Dated 07.01.2026, Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The :-2-: Ita. Nos:2488-2489/Chny/2026 Ao"] U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Dated 05.03.2024 & U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 04.09.2024, Respectively, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Assessment Proceedings & Are Interconnected, These Appeals Were Heard Together. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & To Avoid Repetition Of Facts, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate for Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K.Jayaganesh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

Ayodhya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3703/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3703/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ayodhya Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 3/11, Seshachala Vs. Corporate Ward 1(3) Gramini Garden Street Chennai. Sathangadu, Chennai – 600 119 [Pan: Aaacv2495B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06. 2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.11.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(3) Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-Nfac Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ab Rephcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2629/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalab Rephcons Income Tax Officer, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1(1), (Non-Existing Entity Vs. New Delhi-11 Through Ex-Director Mr. Sachin Nagar) Pan-Aagca4141D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 29/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 15.01.2026 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. It Is Observed That The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act Whereas The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 19.02.2024 Has Already Been Set Aside By The Ld. Cit(A) To Ab Rephcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito The File Of The Ao For Fresh Consideration In Terms Of The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 03.03.2025. As The Order In Which The Present Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated Has Been Set Aside To The Ao For Fresh Assessment, The Consequent Penalty Proceedings Has No Legs To Stand And, Therefore, Penalty So Levied U/S 271Aac (1) Of The Act Is Hereby Deleted. However, The Ao Is At Liberty To Re-Initiate The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act, If The Circumstances Suggested So In The Set Aside Assessment Proceedings. With This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-46(1), New Delhi vs. Yogesh Batra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7643/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Yogesh Batra, Ward-46(1), 104, Deshbandhu New Delhi. Vs. Apartment, Alaknanda, South Delhi, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaipb3266H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv. Shri Ankit Khnaduri, Adv. Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 29/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 10.10.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Dated 29.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.03.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.17,92,940/-. Based On The Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Chandigarh That The Assessee Has Entered Into Cash Transactions Of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- With Omaxe Group Towards The Ito Vs. Yogesh Batra Purchase Of Property At “The Forest Spa” Project Of Omaxe Group In Faridabad, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 13.03.2024. Thereafter, The Reassessment Order Was Passed Dated 29.03.2025 After Making Addition Of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- U/S 69 R.W.S 115Bbe By Holding That Assessee Has Made Unexplained Investment In Cash Of The Said Sum Towards Acquisition Of Property.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69