“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

Arcot Afsar Begum, Tadipatri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1134/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Prescribed Period. It Was Contended That The Delay Is Neither Willful Nor Deliberate But Has Occurred On Account Of Genuine & Bona Fide Reasons. Accordingly, He Prayed For Condonation Of The Delay In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 3. Per Contra, The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr") Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To The Prayer Of The Assessee. 4. We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of Both Sides & Perused The Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Placed On Record. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Has Shown A Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Is Well Settled That When Substantial Justice & Technical Considerations Are Pitted Against Each Other, The Cause Of Substantial Justice Deserves To Be Preferred. In View Of The Above Facts & Circumstances & There Being No Serious Objection From The Revenue, We Condone The Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 5. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 115BSection 147Section 44ASection 69A

year under consideration. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2021. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee neither filed any return of income

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Stypack Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 997/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1312/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) 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: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : 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)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

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

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Since the assessee had not filed any return of income, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2022. The assessee neither filed return in response to the notice nor complied with subsequent notices. However, after about

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1311/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1310/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1309/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Manikala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The issues in Ground No. 4 by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) upholding the order of Assessing Officer, wherein the addition of Rs.33,35,000/-was made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 68

under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 22.03.2022 after passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee filed return of income in compliance ... perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee’s case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground of receipt of accommodation entries from three parties as noted hereinabove. As a matter of fact, that

Ansar Rahaman, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

ITA 1190/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

that the assessee has deposited Rs. 4,67,000/- in his bank account No. 6622000100040 with Kolkata Branch of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Consequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and the assessee filed return of income on 27.10.2021. Finally, the addition was made

M/S Vibhuti Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

that the assessee had received at Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s Gajagamini 2 M/s Vibhuti Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.03.2020 which was complied by the assessee on 05.01.2021. Therefore, statutory notice along with questionnaire was duly ... upholding the order of Assessing Officer. 4. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee which is available at page no. 9 of the paper book which is unsigned

Mahesh Chand Garg, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3376/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Mahesh Chand Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), B-209, Lohia Nagar, Cgo Complex, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aarpg8728N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Assessee deposited certain sum in his saving bank account but no return of income was filed by him - Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on ground that there was an escapement of income - Whether where Assessing Officer proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income and overlooked

Sobhin Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(1), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 4023/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

ITA No.4023/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Gulamahemad Hamidulla Khan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 165/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 dated 26/07/2022 without specifying the DIN & Notice No as envisaged in CBDT circular No. 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 and therefore the relevant notice is invalid

Raghupati Mercantiles Private Limited, West Bengal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

FLOOR OPP : Armeinian Ghat KOLKATA 700001 , West Bengal india PAN: BY: ~[ Dated: DIN & Notice No: ) AACCR9479D 2014-15 | 16/04/2024 | ITBAJAS'T/S/148/2021-22/1032474717(1) Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir/ Madam/ M/s, Whereas | have reasons to believe that your Income chargeadle tu Tax for the Assessment Year

Nanjundaiah Chandraiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the filed by is allowed in above terms”

ITA 966/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Nanjundaiah Chandraiah, Vs. Ito, No.343-D 17Th Cross Road ,Ideal Homes Ward – 3(3)(1), Township Rajarajeshwarinagar Bangalore. Bangalore 560098 ,Karnataka India Pan : Acypc 8455 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sakshi Deshpande & Shri. V. Srinivasan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Sakshi Deshpande and Shri. V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian B, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

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

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70(SC). The learned Counsel strongly contested that the AO has issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021 is bad in law because as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court noted supra, the Revenue ... 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

Muniyappa Muniraju, Bengaluru vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 263Section 44A

section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the case was reopened following due procedure as per sections 147/148 of the Act and accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 26.03.2021. Accordingly, assessee filed return of income on 16.04.2021 declaring total income ... Form No.26AS there is commission receipt of Rs.12 lakhs which has not been offered in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. However, as per Form 26AS there is TDS of Rs.65,000/- which has been claimed by the assessee. The AO has without

Shanti Satyadev Mishra, Santacruz Vakola vs. Assessing Officer, Piramal Chamber Parel

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3 of appeal are allowed for

ITA 4574/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shanti Satyadev Mishra Ito - 22(3)(1), Mumbai C-603 Building No. 3, Khandwala Sra Scy, Vs Dattamandir Road, Vakola B Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055. [Pan: Arepm0794J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)

Appeal Centre /Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17th December 2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: (1) Assessment is void ab initio as notice under section 148 is invalid for reasons that notice was issued by jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) registered document itself says that property was purchased in earlier

Anwar Ismail Agwan, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2518/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalanwar Ismail Agwan, Noor Mohammad Chawl, Nr. Ajit Galss Oshiwara, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400102 Pan : Acwpa3632N V/S Ito, Ward-24(1)(2) ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

deposited cash to the tune of Rs.10,10,000/- in his bank account and Rs.5,40,000/- with the banking company. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.09.2019 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. However, the assessee did not respond

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Haresh Kumar Manjibhai Patel, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

ITA 3633/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69C

upon noting that the assessee had sold SRDL shares worth ₹3,16,08,941/–, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on 11/03/2022. 6. According to the Assessing Officer, no effective reply was filed by the assessee in response to the said notice. The learned

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

ultimately came to conclude that there could be no question of a concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148. From a reading of the before the High Court. At least the decision makes no reference to the notification of 13 August ... management strategy formulated by the Board, as referred to in Explanation 1 clause (i) to Section 148 of the Act, for issuance of notice under Section 148 in a faceless manner, as per the scheme framed vide notification dated 29.03.2022, cannot be applied to the case of Search and Seizure

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68