“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

Linga Naveenkumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 551/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.551/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Linga Naveenkumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 4(1) Pan:Aafpn0021P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate K Prabhabati राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Tv Vamshidhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate K PrabhabatiFor Respondent: : Shri TV Vamshidhar, Sr.AR

Section 148

same was already offered as income under the head ‘income from other sources’ by the Appellant in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that dismissing the ground would result in taxing the commission income twice

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1314/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1313 & 1314/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 29.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2020-21. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2020-21, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 132ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

over by the Revenue from the police on 15.11.2021. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2022. As there was no compliance on the part of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer

546 Sulur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Socirty, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal and the Stay application of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2159/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co- I.T.O., Operative Credit Society, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 4(1), 61, Town Corporation Street, 67A Race Course Road, Sulur S.O. Rajkamal Tex, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore-641402 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aaaaz 0534 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31/03/2022 with the approval of ld. PCIT, Coimbatore-1 and finally, a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 05/04/2022 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued under Section 148, the assessee filed

T.C. 30 Thothukudi Port Aluvalar Co-Op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Thoothukudi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tutucorin

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

ITA 1945/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1945/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 T.C. 30, Thoothukudi Port Aluvalar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward 1, Thoothukudi 628 004. Tuticorin. [Pan:Aagat3402L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. In The Grounds Of Appeal, Besides Challenging Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26.04.2022 and the case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Since there was no representation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s ... assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed by the assessment unit of NFAC. Further, we note that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and also passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act. On perusal

M/S. Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Temple, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-2 (Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1913/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Arulmigu Ekambaranathar I.T.O., Temple, Vs. Ward-2 (Exemptions), No. 121, T.S. No. 2796, Ekambaranathar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Sannadhi St., Nungambakkam, Kanchipuram-631502. Chennai-600034. Pan No. Aaaja 1794 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

bank account maintained by the Trust an also in receipt of rental income of Rs. 5,40,000/- as per the TDS return. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee asking for filing return of income ... response of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee has neither filed return of income nor reply has been submitted. Other statutory notices were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee but the assessee has failed to provide any response. By finding no response of the assessee

Rathi Gajendran, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tuticorin

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1910/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayrathi Gajendran, I.T.O., 138J, Ellayarasanendal Road Vs. Ward-2, Near Clubh, Kovilpatti Tuticorin. Thoothukudi-628501. Pan No. Birpr 3787 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 26/03/2022 asking the assessee that why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued in the case of assessee after getting approval from the specified authority under Section ... response, however, was received from the assessee and therefore, 2 ITA1910/Chny/2025 Rathi Gajendran Vs ITO notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to file the return of income. The assessee accordingly filed return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer

Avalamurthy Shiva Kumar, Bengaluru Rural vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 593/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Avalamurthy Shiva Kumar, Vs. Ito, Rajaghattarajaghatta Post, Ward – 7(2)(3), Doddaballapura Tk, Bangalore. Bangalore Rural – 561 203. Karnataka. Pan : Batpa 2333 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhusudhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Madhusudhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115BSection 136Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Axis Bank account but there was no return of income filed by the assessee. In this regard, after following due procedure, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The AO provided numerous opportunities to the assessee but there was no reply from the assessee

Tushar Suresh Tayshete, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4968/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailtushar Suresh Tayshete, E-701, Ambika Darshan, C.P. Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai – 400101 ............... Appellant Pan : Aadpt9011H

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek ChoksyFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 2Section 250Section 3Section 69

case pertaining to this issue are that the assessee is an individual and pursuant to the information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 24.04.2022, as the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

Officer [in short Ld. A.O.] was not based on any tangible material as prima facie ascertained from the reasons recorded for issuing impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, mandatory condition for meeting jurisdictional requirement is absent for formation of belief. 3. On the facts ... also in Audited Financial Statements and there was no failure on part of the Appellant to disclose all primary material facts and impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued beyond period of 4 years from end assessment year 2012-13, the Appellant is protected by proviso

Arham Star, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Arham Star Income-Tax Officer, Cw-2090, Bharat Diamond Ward - 19(2)(2), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (Pan: Aaafs5695M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075308198(1), Dated 30/03/2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, 19(1)(1), Mumbai, U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 22.12.2017 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Purchases Made By The Appellant Were Genuine & Supported By Documentary Material Including The Corroboration Of Sales Made From Such Purchases & There Was Not Material To Show That The Purchases Were Not Genuine & Hence, The Same Could Not Have Been Disallowed. 2. The Nfac Erred In Upholding The Addition On The Basis Of Generalized Statements In The Assessment Order Without The Assessing Officer Having Conducted Any Enquiry In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

name change which is placed on record in the paper book containing 165 pages. Case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2017 which was based on search and survey action conducted in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain and others on 03.10.2013 by DGIT

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1682/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

profits and gains of business. On that basis, he recorded ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. 3.1 Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... approval from the specified authority, 29.07.2022, after obtaining approval from the specified authority, 29.07.2022, after obtaining approval from the specified authority, and issued notice under section 148 on the same date. In response, issued notice under section 148 on the same date. In response, issued notice under section 148

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1681/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1680/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1679/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

Amrit Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1658/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Amrit Corporation Dcit, Cc-1(1) K-225/226, Ansa Industrial Pratishtha Bhavan Estate, Saki Vihar Road Vs. M.K. Road Sakinaka, Andheri East Churchgate Mumbai-400 072. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaffa1022R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya M. RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt

Section 148Section 250

From the above, the Ld. AR of the appellant has pointed that for A.Y.2018-19, the Ld. AO has issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 7.4.2022 and in that notice, it was mentioned that prior approval of PCIT(Central) was taken before issuing this notice ... taken and not Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Since, the approval is not taken from Competent Authority, it was pleaded that the reopening notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid and all consequent proceedings will also become invalid. 3 Amrit Corporation 3. The Ld. DR argued that

ACIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dinesh Harichand Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1594/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: 12/08/2025

Section 68

escaped assessment and believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessme believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessme accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on accordingly issued notice under section 148

Asst. CIT- 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Dinesh Harichand Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 3927/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: 12/08/2025

Section 68

Jagdish Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Jhandewalan

ITA 4546/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Shrikant Namdeo, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Section 142(1) dated 07.11.2019 along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. The assessee duly raised objection against the said issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act before the Ld. AO which Page 4 ITA No. 4546/Del/2025 S.A. No.429/Del/2025 Jagdish Malhotra (AY: 2012-13) was disposed ... regard, he has drawn our attention to page 5 of the paper book filed before us being the reason recorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee. Apart from that, he has further challenged the approval granted by the Ld. PCIT

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

ITA 2506/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 148ASection 151

relevant assessment year.” 4. Undisputedly, we are in this writ petition concerned with Assessment Year 2016-17 and in respect of which the notice under Section 148 of the Act ultimately came to be issued on 29 July 2022. It is thus apparent that the action has come

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

ITA 2505/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 148ASection 151