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

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (in-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur vs. Santulal Khandelwal, Adityapur

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.55,50,470/-. The ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 79/RAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur…....……….……………….……Appellant Jharkhand-831001 Vs. Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………....Respondent Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] C.O No.02, 03 & 04/Ran/2025 (Arising In I.T.A. Nos. 64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025) Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………Cross-Objector Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] Vs. Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur ….…..….......………..…...…..Respondent Jharkhand-831001 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Above-Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Dated 03.01.2025, 03.01.2025 & 24.01.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (in-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur vs. Shantulal Khandelwal, Adityapur

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.55,50,470/-. The ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 68/RAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur…....……….……………….……Appellant Jharkhand-831001 Vs. Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………....Respondent Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] C.O No.02, 03 & 04/Ran/2025 (Arising In I.T.A. Nos. 64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025) Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………Cross-Objector Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] Vs. Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur ….…..….......………..…...…..Respondent Jharkhand-831001 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Above-Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Dated 03.01.2025, 03.01.2025 & 24.01.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Dr. Atul Kumar, Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (in-Situ), Circle-1 Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur vs. Santulal Khandelwal, Adityapur

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.55,50,470/-. The ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 64/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur…....……….……………….……Appellant Jharkhand-831001 Vs. Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………....Respondent Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] C.O No.02, 03 & 04/Ran/2025 (Arising In I.T.A. Nos. 64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025) Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………Cross-Objector Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] Vs. Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur ….…..….......………..…...…..Respondent Jharkhand-831001 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Above-Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Dated 03.01.2025, 03.01.2025 & 24.01.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Vinod Singh Yadav, Ballia vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Vinod Singh Yadav, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Village Bajahan, Shankarpur Income Tax-3, Lucknow-New Majhauli, Ballia-277203 Pan: Abvpy3409P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 7.11.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee & Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 8.08.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Assessment Is Bad In Law & Being Passed By The Ld. Ao Without Assuming Proper Jurisdiction. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Assessment Is Bad In Law & Being Passed By The Ld. Ao Without Considering The Fact That Contact Details Of The Appellant Was Outdated I.E. Email Id & Phone Number Of The Appellant Was Not Updated On The Income Tax Portal. 3. Because On The Facts & Its The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Assessment Is Bad Its Law & Being Passed By The Ld. Ao Without Considering The Fact That During The Assessment Proceedings For The Said Assessment Year, Appellant Was Retiring From Krc Ranikhet Uk Unit Of The Indian Army Under The Ministry Of Defense, Government Of India

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80CSection 87A