Section 142 provides the AO's procedural powers for inquiry before assessment. Three primary powers: (i) Call for return (if not filed within s. 139 time); (ii) Produce accounts / documents; (iii) Furnish information including statement of assets / liabilities (whether in books or not). The information-demanding power is comprehensive — covers off-book assets too.
Section 142(2) — broader investigative power. AO may make 'such inquiry as he considers necessary' — judicially circumscribed to be relevant + reasonable. Section 142(2A) — Special audit — if accounts are complex / voluminous / doubtful, AO can order CA-firm-led special audit; cost recoverable from assessee (subject to procedural compliance + section 142(2C) prior approval).
Section 142(3) — Natural justice safeguard — assessee must be given OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD before any material gathered under s. 142(2) / (2A) inquiry is used adversely. This is GKN Driveshafts-style procedural protection. Faceless framework — s. 142 notices issued through faceless system; e-Filing portal; CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection) drives selection.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the procedural framework.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ FA 1962 — Section 142 came into force.
■ FA 1987 — Section 142(2A) special audit framework refined.
■ FA 2002 — Section 142(2C) prior approval for special audit.
■ FA 2020 — Faceless framework for s. 142 notices.
Facts. The assessee received a section 148 notice but was not furnished the reasons recorded by the ITO. The High Court declined to interfere and directed the assessee to pursue the assessment.
Issue. Procedure for challenge to a section 148 reassessment notice — must the assessee be furnished reasons recorded, and may objections be raised before participating in the assessment.
HELD. On receipt of notice under section 148, the assessee may file a return and seek reasons recorded by the ITO. The ITO is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time; the assessee may then file objections, which the ITO must dispose of by a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment.
“We clarify that when a notice under section 148 is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time.”
Relevance. Operative authority on the reassessment procedure under sections 147/148 — still good law for the procedural framework even after the FA 2021 overhaul and Ashish Agarwal.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
Facts. Section 52(2) (since deleted) deemed sale consideration to be FMV where FMV exceeded the declared consideration by 15%. The Department applied it on a literal reading even when the assessee had not in fact received more than the declared price.
Issue. Whether a deeming provision in a charging schema can be construed literally where its plain reading produces a result manifestly contrary to legislative object.
HELD. The Court read down section 52(2) to apply only where the assessee had actually received consideration in excess of the declared sum. A literal construction yielding absurd or unjust results must yield to an object-based interpretation; the CBDT's contemporaneous Circular No. 96 was held binding on the Revenue.
“It is well settled that a literal construction of a statutory provision ought not to be adopted if it produces a manifestly unjust result… Where a literal construction creates an anomaly, the courts will adopt that construction which avoids the anomaly.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for purposive construction of deeming fictions across the 1961 Act — applies wherever a deeming clause (e.g., s. 50C, s. 56(2)(x), s. 2(22)(e)) yields a result contrary to legislative purpose.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Standard 142(1) notice
Facts. A receives s. 142(1) notice asking for additional documents for AY 2024-25 scrutiny.
Computation.
S. 142(1)(ii) — Produce accounts / documents.
A responds within timeline.
Documentation preservation essential.
Result. Standard inquiry; preserve replies + acknowledgements.
Illustration — Illustration 2 — Section 142(2A) special audit
Facts. B's books are voluminous + irregular; AO orders s. 142(2A) special audit.
Computation.
S. 142(2A) — Nature / complexity / volume requirement.
S. 142(2C) — Prior approval from Pr. CIT.
Audit by CBDT-approved CA firm.
Cost-recovery from B per scale.
B has procedural defence — challenge necessity test.
Result. Special audit — significant procedural+cost burden; challenge necessity.
Illustration — Illustration 3 — Information demand (s. 142(1)(iii))
Facts. C asked to furnish statement of all assets / liabilities incl. off-book.
Computation.
S. 142(1)(iii) — Comprehensive information power.
Off-book assets disclosure required.
Failure → s. 271(1)(b) penalty + adverse inference.
STATUTORY ARCHITECTURE — 18-ROW MAP
01. Section & marginal note
Section 142 — Inquiry Before Assessment — Chapter XIV.
02. Sub-section structure
Per operative text.
03. Operative trigger
Procedural event — return / inquiry / assessment / reassessment / etc.
04. Persons affected
All assessees within the procedural framework.
05. Time anchor — PY / AY
Per AY procedural cycle.
06. Income anchor
Operates on total income computation.
07. Residential-status nexus
Standard.
08. Rate / charge mechanism
Indirect through computed income.
09. TDS / TCS interaction
Section 199 credit; section 201 default.
10. Advance-tax obligation
Section 207-211 quarterly framework.
11. Presumptive provisions
Section 44AD / ADA / AE simplification.
12. Exemption / deduction mechanism
Section computes net taxable income post-deductions.
13. Refund / credit
Section 237-245A framework.
14. Return / disclosure reporting
ITR-wise; Schedule-wise comprehensive.
15. Penalty exposure
Section 270A under-reporting / mis-reporting; Section 271AAB search.
16. Prosecution exposure
Section 276 series; 277 false statement.
17. Cross-statute interplay
Civil Procedure Code; Limitation Act; Faceless Assessment Notification.
18. Repeal & saving — 1961 → 2025
Preserved with FA framework.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 142 provides the AO's procedural powers for inquiry before assessment. Three primary powers: (i) Call for return (if not filed within s. 139 time); (ii) Produce accounts / documents; (iii) Furnish information including statement of assets / liabilities (whether in books or not). The information-demanding power is comprehensive — covers off-book assets too.
Section 142(2) — broader investigative power. AO may make 'such inquiry as he considers necessary' — judicially circumscribed to be relevant + reasonable. Section 142(2A) — Special audit — if accounts are complex / voluminous / doubtful, AO can order CA-firm-led special audit; cost recoverable from assessee (subject to procedural compliance + section 142(2C) prior approval).
Section 142(3) — Natural justice safeguard — assessee must be given OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD before any material gathered under s. 142(2) / (2A) inquiry is used adversely. This is GKN Driveshafts-style procedural protection. Faceless framework — s. 142 notices issued through faceless system; e-Filing portal; CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection) drives selection.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the procedural framework.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ FA 1962 — Section 142 came into force.
■ FA 1987 — Section 142(2A) special audit framework refined.
■ FA 2002 — Section 142(2C) prior approval for special audit.
■ FA 2020 — Faceless framework for s. 142 notices.
■ FA 2024 / 2025 — Procedural refinements.
■ Income-tax Act, 2025 — Section 142 successor, operative 1-4-2026.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION — VERIFIED LANDMARK AUTHORITIES
▸ GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 ; (2003) 1 SCC 72 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee received a section 148 notice but was not furnished the reasons recorded by the ITO. The High Court declined to interfere and directed the assessee to pursue the assessment.
Issue. Procedure for challenge to a section 148 reassessment notice — must the assessee be furnished reasons recorded, and may objections be raised before participating in the assessment.
HELD. On receipt of notice under section 148, the assessee may file a return and seek reasons recorded by the ITO. The ITO is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time; the assessee may then file objections, which the ITO must dispose of by a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment.
“We clarify that when a notice under section 148 is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time.”
Relevance. Operative authority on the reassessment procedure under sections 147/148 — still good law for the procedural framework even after the FA 2021 overhaul and Ashish Agarwal.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 ; (2015) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court — 5-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam (1981) 131 ITR 597 ; (1981) 4 SCC 173 (Supreme Court — 3-Judge Bench)
Facts. Section 52(2) (since deleted) deemed sale consideration to be FMV where FMV exceeded the declared consideration by 15%. The Department applied it on a literal reading even when the assessee had not in fact received more than the declared price.
Issue. Whether a deeming provision in a charging schema can be construed literally where its plain reading produces a result manifestly contrary to legislative object.
HELD. The Court read down section 52(2) to apply only where the assessee had actually received consideration in excess of the declared sum. A literal construction yielding absurd or unjust results must yield to an object-based interpretation; the CBDT's contemporaneous Circular No. 96 was held binding on the Revenue.
“It is well settled that a literal construction of a statutory provision ought not to be adopted if it produces a manifestly unjust result… Where a literal construction creates an anomaly, the courts will adopt that construction which avoids the anomaly.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for purposive construction of deeming fictions across the 1961 Act — applies wherever a deeming clause (e.g., s. 50C, s. 56(2)(x), s. 2(22)(e)) yields a result contrary to legislative purpose.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989
Subject. Explanatory notes — Finance Act 1989 amendments (incl. PY unification)
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024
Subject. Procedure for transitional reassessment notices post-Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Standard 142(1) notice
Facts. A receives s. 142(1) notice asking for additional documents for AY 2024-25 scrutiny.
Computation.
S. 142(1)(ii) — Produce accounts / documents.
A responds within timeline.
Documentation preservation essential.
Result. Standard inquiry; preserve replies + acknowledgements.
Illustration — Illustration 2 — Section 142(2A) special audit
Facts. B's books are voluminous + irregular; AO orders s. 142(2A) special audit.
Computation.
S. 142(2A) — Nature / complexity / volume requirement.
S. 142(2C) — Prior approval from Pr. CIT.
Audit by CBDT-approved CA firm.
Cost-recovery from B per scale.
B has procedural defence — challenge necessity test.
Result. Special audit — significant procedural+cost burden; challenge necessity.
Illustration — Illustration 3 — Information demand (s. 142(1)(iii))
Facts. C asked to furnish statement of all assets / liabilities incl. off-book.
Computation.
S. 142(1)(iii) — Comprehensive information power.
Off-book assets disclosure required.
Failure → s. 271(1)(b) penalty + adverse inference.
C's defence — preserve documentation; bona-fide disclosure.
Result. Information power broad; comprehensive disclosure preferred.
Illustration — Illustration 4 — Faceless 142 notice
Facts. D receives s. 142 notice via faceless framework.
Computation.
Faceless framework — notice via e-Filing portal.
Reply via portal; no in-person interaction.
Section 144B procedural framework continues.
Time-bar discipline strict.
Result. Faceless 142 procedural framework; portal-based discipline.
Illustration — Illustration 5 — Section 142(3) natural justice
Facts. E's special audit produces adverse findings; AO uses without hearing.
Computation.
S. 142(3) — Opportunity of hearing mandatory.
GKN Driveshafts anchor.
If no hearing → procedural violation.
E can challenge in appeal.
Result. Section 142(3) natural justice; procedural lapse appealable.
PRACTITIONER PLANNING NOTES
■ Strict timing discipline — procedural deadlines are typically strict.
■ Documentation discipline — preserve notices / replies / orders.
■ Faceless framework — section 144B for assessment; section 148A for preliminary inquiry; section 246A for appeals.
■ GKN Driveshafts framework — reassessment procedure essentials.
■ Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal — transitional reassessment post-FA 2021.
■ TOLA — COVID-period limitation extension; operative for AY 2013-14 to 2017-18 reassessment time-bar.
■ Section 144B faceless procedure — multi-step framework; track each stage.
■ Section 270A under-reporting / mis-reporting — distinguishing tests.
■ Section 273B reasonable-cause defence for procedural lapses.
■ Time-bar defences under s. 149 / s. 153 — comprehensive vigilance.
■ Section 142(1) inquiry response — preserve; do not ignore.
■ Section 143(1) intimation — reconcile with Form 26AS / AIS.
■ Section 143(2) scrutiny notice — limited timing window (3 months from end of FY of return filing).
■ Section 144 best judgment — reasonable-basis requirement; defend against arbitrary assessment.
■ Annual practitioner update on procedural framework changes.
LITIGATION DEFENCE
■ GKN Driveshafts anchor — natural justice; reasoned order; opportunity of hearing.
■ Ashish Agarwal anchor — transitional reassessment validity; Article 142 SC framework.
■ Rajeev Bansal anchor — TOLA + reassessment time-bar matrix; AY-wise computation.
■ Calcutta Discount anchor — Article 226 jurisdiction against jurisdictional fact errors.
■ Malabar Industrial anchor — section 263 twin-condition; revisional jurisdiction limits.
■ Reliance Petroproducts — bona-fide claim defence against penalty.
■ Hindustan Coca-Cola — no double recovery for TDS defaults.
■ Strict construction — Mathuram Agrawal anchor for procedural over-reach.
■ Object-based interpretation — K.P. Varghese for beneficial procedural provisions.
■ Vatika Township prospective amendment — for FA 2021 reassessment overhaul.
■ BC Srinivasa Setty — for charge / computation failures.
■ Excel Industries accrual — for timing-related procedural challenges.
■ Section 273B reasonable-cause defence for delays.
■ Beneficial circulars — UCO Bank anchor (CBDT binding under s. 119).
■ Faceless framework procedural compliance — challenge if violated.
■ Time-bar challenges — s. 149 / s. 153 strict reading.
PROCEDURE
Step 1. Identify procedural event
Return / inquiry / assessment / reassessment / etc.
Step 2. Verify timing within section's window
Strict deadline discipline.
Step 3. Document compliance evidence
Preserve filings / responses / acknowledgements.
Step 4. Apply faceless framework if applicable
Section 144B / 148A / etc.
Step 5. Preserve GKN Driveshafts framework requirements
Reasons / opportunity / objection.
Step 6. Reconcile with Form 26AS / AIS / TIS
Standard.
Step 7. Compute liability / refund
Per ITR / intimation / assessment order.
Step 8. Section 270A / 271AAB / 271AAC penalty assessment
Defence if not voluntary.
Step 9. Section 273B reasonable-cause preparation
For procedural lapses.
Step 10. Appellate route preservation
Section 246A / 253 / 260A.
Step 11. Stay applications
Pending appeal.
Step 12. Documentation 7-17 years
Procedural records.
Step 13. Annual practitioner update
FA framework changes.
Step 14. Client briefing
Procedural milestones.
Step 15. Coordinate with Form 15CA / 15CB / 27Q frameworks
Cross-border.
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST
☐ Procedural event identified.
☐ Section-specific timing verified.
☐ Compliance evidence preserved.
☐ Faceless framework applied (where applicable).
☐ GKN Driveshafts requirements satisfied.
☐ Form 26AS reconciliation.
☐ AIS / TIS reconciliation.
☐ Computed liability / refund.
☐ Section 270A defence prepared.
☐ Section 271AAB / 271AAC defence.
☐ Section 273B reasonable-cause.
☐ Appellate route preserved.
☐ Stay application considered.
☐ Documentation 7-17 years.
☐ Annual FA update.
☐ Client briefing done.
☐ Time-bar vigilance.
☐ TOLA framework consideration (for legacy AYs).
☐ Faceless procedural compliance.
CROSS-REFERENCES
▸ Section 4 — Charge.
▸ Section 14 — Heads.
▸ Section 119 — CBDT circulars binding.
▸ Section 139 — Return.
▸ Section 140 / 140A — Self-assessment.
▸ Section 142 — Inquiry.
▸ Section 143 — Assessment / intimation.
▸ Section 144 — Best judgment.
▸ Section 144B — Faceless.
▸ Section 144C — DRP.
▸ Section 147 — Reassessment trigger.
▸ Section 148 — Notice.
▸ Section 148A — Preliminary inquiry (FA 2021).
▸ Section 149 — Time-bar.
▸ Section 153 — Completion-of-assessment limit.
▸ Section 154 — Rectification.
▸ Section 156 — Notice of demand.
▸ Section 245 — Refund adjustment.
▸ Section 246A — Appeal to CIT(A).
▸ Section 253 — Appeal to ITAT.
▸ Section 263 — Revision (Commissioner).
▸ Section 264 — Revision (assessee).
▸ Section 270A — Penalty.
▸ Section 271AAB — Search penalty.
▸ Section 271AAC — s. 68-69D penalty.
▸ Section 273B — Reasonable cause.
▸ Section 276 series — Prosecution.
▸ Section 277 — False statement.
▸ Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation) Act 2020 (TOLA).
▸ Faceless Assessment Notification under s. 144B.
▸ Income-tax Act, 2025 — Successor, operative 1-4-2026.
▸ Income-tax Act, 2025 — Section 536 (saving).
▸ Section 143 — Assessment.
▸ Section 144B — Faceless.
▸ Section 271(1)(b) — Non-compliance penalty.
▸ Section 273B — Reasonable cause.
▸ Faceless Assessment Notification.