Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.282

Section 149(1)(b) falls under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 282 (Time limit for notices under sections 280 and 281) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 282 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 149(1)(b) is 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices v. UOI (385 ITR 497), cited in 163 of the 329 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 149(1)(b)

535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices v. UOI
385 ITR 497 · 2016 · High Court
163
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 201(1) are barred by limitation if the prescribed period of limitation under section 201(3) had expired before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 came into force. The amended section 201(3) does not apply retrospectively.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse
3 SCC 722 · 2002 · Reported
58
citing judgments
B.K Gooyee v. CIT
62 ITR 109 · 1966 · High Court
26
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that is not signed by the Income Tax Officer is invalid and considered no notice at all, as the signature is an essential and integral part of the notice.

P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer
101 ITR 385 · 1975 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Sanction for reassessment proceedings under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act must be granted with due application of mind and cannot be a mechanical or routine exercise.

Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT
150 ITR 460 · 1984 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Central Board of Revenue (now CBDT) circulars that confer a benefit on the assessee are binding on income-tax officers and must be followed, even if they deviate from the strict interpretation of the law.

CIT v. Micro Labs Ltd.
348 ITR 75 · 2012 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The notice issued under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid if no search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee. A notice under section 153C can only be assumed by the AO if incriminating material relevant to the assessee was found during a search and seizure operation in another case and there was no search warrant in the assessee's name.

Mayawati v. CIT
321 ITR 349 · 2010 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only mandates the issuance of a notice within the prescribed period and does not require the notice to be served on the assessee within that same period.

Cit v. Independent Mdia (P) Ltd.
210 Taxmann 14 · 2012 · High Court
19
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to prove that share money originated from the assessee's own funds; Section 68 of the Income Tax Act does not place such a burden on the AO.

Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT
147 Taxmann.com 254 · 2023 · High Court
16
citing judgments

An assessment order passed against a deceased person, even if initiated after death, is null and void and must be set aside, especially when the return was filed by the legal representative.

Renu T Tharani v. DCIT (International Taxation)
117 Taxmann.com 84 · 2020 · Reported
15
citing judgments

The case is distinguished when the assessee has explained the contents of a base note and clarified their residency status and taxability in India, unlike in the cited case where the assessee, a non-resident, failed to explain the contents of a base note related to a foreign bank deposit.

Judgments on Section 149(1)(b)

Income Tax Officer -42(1)(3), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra vs. Krishna Deep Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6240/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

Krishna Deep Builders, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5768/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

Scan Indurstries Private Limited, Sundargarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.102/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Scan Industries Private Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Q1, Civil Township, Rourkela Pan No. :Aeops 8527 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. K. Poddar, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr. Cit, Sambalpur U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1060101431(1). 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That Before The Ld Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, In Response To Show Cause Notice U/S.263 Of The Act, The Assessee Had Categorically Submitted That The Original Assessment Order, Which Was Passed U/S.147/144B Of The Act Dated 30.3.2022 Itself Was Bad In Law, Insofar As The Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued Only On 1.4.2021 & Not On 31.3.2021, Which Was The Last Date For Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. Ld Ar Drew Our Attention To Page 20 Of Written

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)