“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

Unteswar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 377/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

time of final hearing.” II. ITA No. 376/GTY/2025; AY 2017-18: “1. That the assessment is bad in law since the notice under Section 148 dated 24/02/2020 was issued by ITO WBYRNIHAT who is clearly not authorised to do so in view of the CBDTs order

Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christianbasti

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 375/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

time of final hearing." II. ITA No. 376/GTY/2025; AY 2017-18: "1. That the assessment is bad in law since the notice under Section 148 dated 24/02/2020 was issued by ITO WBYRNIHAT who is clearly not authorised to do so in view of the CBDTs order

Concord Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1744/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that M/s Umiya Trading Company was a non- genuine entity engaged in providing accommodation entries, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 13.04.2021 declaring income of Rs. 1,14,95,42,290/-. During

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1627/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

under consideration, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issue of notice under section 148 dated 30th March 2021. The incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of one Shri Gautam

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1621/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1620/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Hemalatha Chervu, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1966/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Hemalatha Chervu Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Aodpc8304C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Akash Deshpande, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/11/2025, For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16. The Page 1 Of 11

For Appellant: Shri Akash Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons recorded, as per which, income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment and, accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act, dated, 6/4/2022 was issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee has not filed return of income in compliance with ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening of the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 06/04/2022 is beyond the limitation provided under section 148 of the Act and the 1st proviso provided therein

Ramdev Munadhda, Warangal vs. Income Tax Office Ward -1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1837/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

Section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 05/02/2024, wherein, based on the aforesaid information, the assessee was called upon to explain why a notice under Section 148 of the Act may not be issued to him, Page 4-8 of APB. As the assessee had failed to respond ... assessee had escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 1,57,85,000/-, Page 7- of APB. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29/02/2024, i.e., beyond three years but within ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Page

Kaliyappan Arumugam, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3017/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3017/Chny/2025 & S.A No.5/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.3017/Chny/2025) िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kaliyappan Arumugam, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.58A, New No.61, Vs. Ward-1, Kulanthaivelu Salai, Karur. Karur – 638 001. Pan: Aiepa 9862G

For Appellant: Mr. G.Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; ****** 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April ... prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired

Gs & Sd Associates, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

layouts. Since the said remittance was in cash, the Respondent-Revenue conducted an enquiry, reopened the assessment of the assessee (FIRM) by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. We note that simultaneously, the assessment proceedings in the case of partner by name Mr. G. Srinivasan were

Bangalore Union Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

filed. He drew our attention to the paper book and pointed out that a copy of the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 is placed at page 34 thereof, evidencing compliance on the part of the assessee. 12. On merits, challenging the addition made u/s.2

Bajranglal Bhawarlal Sharma, Borivali East vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

ITA 285/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SalujaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that notice under Section 148 of the Act (old regime) was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on 26/06/2021. Subsequently, in Assessment Year 2017-2018 compliance with ... escaped assessment. The Assessee filed reply. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer passed Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 31/07/2022 and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31/07/2022. Before passing Order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice dated 31/07/2022, the Assessing Officer

Sapna Umesh Dutta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 41(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 263/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: passing Order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice dated 31/07/2022, the Assessing Officer obtained approval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. The reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 23/05/2023, under Section 147 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 27/11/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred th

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that notice under Section 148 of the Act (old regime) was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on 31/05/2021. Subsequently, in Assessment Year 2017-2018 compliance with ... escaped assessment. The Assessee filed reply. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer passed Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 31/07/2022 and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31/07/2022. Before passing Order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice dated 31/07/2022, the Assessing Officer

Sheetal Rajeev Gadre, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 8534/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Jagruti Kirti Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6125/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gunjjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

abjection 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 ... about Rs. 64,34,663/- and therefore, the jurisdiction will be that of DC/AC and not ITO. Mr. Jain submitted that since notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by ITO, and not by DC/AC that is by a person who did not have any jurisdiction over

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5967/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala &For Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

follow the amended procedure prescribed in Section 148A as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The contention of the Assessee is that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, though dated 31/03/2021, has been issued on 01/04/2021 as is apparent from the date/time stamp on the ITBA Portal. Therefore ... quashed as bad in law. 6. Per Contra, Learned Departmental Representative supported the Assessment Year 2017-2018 Assessment Order and submitted that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 31/03/2021 as was apparent from the Digital Signature affixed and the date mentioned

Jagruti Kirti Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5844/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gunjjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Ska Sales Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officsr, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5527/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

follow the amended procedure prescribed in Section 148A as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The contention of the Assessee is that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, though dated 31/03/2021, has been issued on 01/04/2021 as is apparent from the date/time stamp on the ITBA Portal. Therefore ... quashed as bad in law. 6. Per Contra, Learned Departmental Representative supported the Assessment Order and submitted that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 31/03/2021 as was apparent from the Digital Signature affixed and the date mentioned on the notice. Therefore

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3866/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Hindustan Petroleum Tax-1(1)(1), Corporation Limited Mumbai Petroleum House Jamshedji Tata Road, Marine Lines S.O Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaach1118B) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Hirali Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075143492(1) Dated 27.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By The Assessment Unit, U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Sec. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.05.2023 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 9,60,00,000/ - On Account Of Disallowance Of Investment Allowance Claimed U/S. 32Ac On Dispensing Units In Retail Outlets Ignoring The Fact That The Dispensing Units Do Not Fall Within The Meaning Of Plant & Hence, Not Eligible For Claim Of Deduction U/S. 32Ac.

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 32A

TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation ... Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground