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

Jasbir Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-57(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4929/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jasbir Singh Vs Ito C/O-9/995, Gandhi Nagar, Ward-57(4) Gandhi Nagar S.O. (East Delhi), Delhi Delhi-110031. Pan-Abmps0071N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Gunjan Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.07.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-19/10474/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 18.02.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,59,845/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Has Two Bank Accounts In Which He Had Made Cash Deposits Of Inr 9,11,38,235/- In Axis Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi & Inr 2,41,03,076/- In Indusind Bank, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi & Since The Income Declared By The Assessee Was Not Commensurate With The Cash Deposited In The Bank Account, The Case Of The Assessee Was Re- Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons & Approval From The Competent Authorities. Thereafter, The Ao Had Made The Addition Of Inr 11,52,41,311/- Being Cash Deposits As Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292BSection 68

Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay, M/S Avantika Enterprises vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 76/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 75 & 76/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2013-14) Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, M/S Avantika Enterprises, Near बनाम/ Dwarka Vs. Rabari Gate, Dwarka, Gujarat-361335, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavpu8193M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.11.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022. 2. Since These Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee & Identical & Common Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay, M/S Avantika Enterprises vs. ITO Ward 1, Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 75/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 75 & 76/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2013-14) Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, M/S Avantika Enterprises, Near बनाम/ Dwarka Vs. Rabari Gate, Dwarka, Gujarat-361335, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavpu8193M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.11.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022. 2. Since These Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee & Identical & Common Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Rahul Kishor Kotecha, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 657/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.657/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Rahul Kishor Kotecha The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), बनाम / Gokul Opp. Sagun Hospital, Kuber Land Mark, Svp Road, Vs. Nr. Dsp Office, Paradise Area, Opp: Sadhana Studio, Porbandar, Porbandar, Gujarat-360575 Gujarat-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buwpk2081A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M. Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019- 20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 07.08.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 147 Of The Act On 24.03.2024. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee, In This Appeal Is That Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts, As The Addition Of Rs.6,26,300/-, Was Made U/S 69C Of Act, On Account Of Unexplained Purchase.

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C