← All Phrases

“notice under section 148”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 1487,377 judgments

The decision most relied on for notice under section 148 is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on notice under section 148

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.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court
713
citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Judgments citing notice under section 148

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

show that 'satisfaction' has been arrived by the ‘AO' to show that any Income liable for Tax has escaped Assessment warranting recourse to Notice under section 148 of the Act. C. The learned AO has wrongly stated that the appellant did not file the return of income whereas the appellant

Mahavir Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmahavir Pukhraj Jain Vs. Dcit, Circle – 42(1)(1) Flat No. 603/B, Manan Kautilya Bhawan, Apartment, New Link Road, Aenue -3, Near Videsh Dahisar East, Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, Bkc 400068. Bandra (E) – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Adepj8540R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

above ruling of apex court, decided the matter on identical issue and made the following observations: "It is well-settled that if a notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act being available to the AO, the notice ... objection to reopening on various grounds. 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income Tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such notice. According to Petitioner as per instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31st January, 2011 issued

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

concluded that the expenditure was not for business purposes and hence not allowable under section 37(1). 6. Pursuant to the said reasons, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31st March 2017. The assessee, in response, raised detailed objections vide letter dated 16th September 2017, challenging

Motibhai Lallubhai Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151

Assessment Year 2015- 2016 which falls under the category within four years as on 31st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 may be given by the Range Head as per the said provisions. Mr. Sharma ... ground that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain sanction from the correct authority under Section 151 of the Act.In this case notice under section 148 was initially issued on 19th May 2021 under the old law.The AO eventually passed an order under section 148A(d) on 13th July

Byas Prasad Verma, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 2/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

Officer (AO) reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the source of cash ITA No.2/VNS/2024 ... erroneous and bad on the facts and in law. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no notice under section 148 of 1.T. Act 1961 has ever been served upon the appellant within the stipulated time. 3. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. ITO Ward3(1), Income Tax Office Azamgarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

Account. The AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, the assessee

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

Account. The AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, the assessee

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

transaction, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notice under section 148 ... Gorakhpur, who was not having valid jurisdiction in the case of the appellant at that time. 2. BECAUSE in the absence of jurisdictional notice under section 148 having been issued by the Assessing Officer ITA No.50/VNS/2022 Page 4 of 8 having valid jurisdiction in the case of the appellant

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 11/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

equity shares of ₹10 each at a premium of ₹90 per share, which according to the AO was not satisfactorily explained. Notice under section 148 was issued and in compliance the assessee filed return of income declaring the same income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that share capital

Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar, Anita Auto, Pondi Chirmiri Korea, Korea vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.230/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar Anita Auto, Pondi, West Chirmiri, Korea (C.G)-497 449 Pan: Afgpj1876C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice:” “148A. Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issuance of notice under section 148.- The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority ... issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case

Abid Mustafa Khan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Abid Mustafa Khan, 301

Arpita Mathew Arukakkal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

case the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in confirming the addition made by AO without appreciating that prior of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, no enquiry was done by the AO on the material available on record, which is against the provisions

Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69

earned interest income of Rs.1,25,251/-. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Act and u/sec 142(1) of the Act and there was no compliance to the notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, based

Mulchand Jaganath Ragit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 454/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Abhay Agrawal. A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 45

issued along with questionnaire. The assessee has filed the submissions and also the objections were filed in respect of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act.The Assessing Officer has dealt on the facts and objections and finally issued show cause notice 3 Mulchand Jaganath Ragit ITA no.454/NAG./2025

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

applicable. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Further notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates and there was no reply filed by the assessee

No 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 455/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151.” Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148- “148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified ... issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

with sections 147, 148, 153A and 153C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148 (Scope of provision) - Assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 - Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice under section 148A(b) seeking ... section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment Issue of notice for (Reassessment) Assessment year 2013-14 Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on basis of information received from Investigation Wing relating to certain share transactions alleging that sell trades exceeded buy trades and assessee

Anil Bansilal Lodha, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik - 1, Nashik

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

ITA 953/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10(38)Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 263

Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where original assessee died and thereafter Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 in his name to reopen assessment and petitioner being heir and legal representative of deceased raised an objection that assessee had already expired ... proceedings, it could not be construed that petitioner had participated in proceedings and, therefore, provisions of section 292B would not be attracted and notice under section 148 was to be treated as invalid. 6.4 In the case of Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadejav. ITO117 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held

Late Sh Sethuraman Through Legal Heir Sh S Nishaanth, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by legal representative of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2615/CHNY/2024[2015-116]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-116

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2615/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Late Shri Sethuraman The Assistant (Rep. By Legal Heir Commissioner Of Income Shri S. Nishaanth), Vs. Tax, O 9/12, Subbarayan Street, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Abhps 3001R (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 14.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act') For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Hereinafter The "Ay").

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 14. The issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act issued in the name of the dead person - the said Mr.S.Veerappan is enforceable in law and the subsidiary issue being

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Golden Express Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

this information the AO initiated proceeding under section 148A and an order under section 148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022 followed by a notice under section 148. The AO issued notice under section 142(1) and 143(2) called for various details and the assessee responded to the same