“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

Hardeep Oberoi, Indore vs. ITO-4(5), Indore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 70/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of the A.O. in issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act without having reason to believe of his own and moreso without assigning proper reason for reopening of the assessment under section

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

been paid on it. To examine the source of investment of Rs.4,66,95,000/-, the ld. AO issued a notice under section 148. The ld. AO, thereafter issued three notices under section 142(1) to the assessee requesting him to submit copies of balance-sheet, profit & loss account, capital

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

Shobha Yadav, Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Knp-W

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

ITA 278/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

section 139(1). Therefore, after following the provisions laid down under section 148A, an order was issued under section 148A(d) and a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee, requiring her to file her return of income. When no response was received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur vs. M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

case was reopened under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. However, the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice under section 148 and instead filed objections to the same vide his letters. Subsequently though, the assessee filed a letter requesting that the return filed under ... section 139(1) of the Act be treated as the return filed in compliance to notice under section 148. The ld. AO first proceeded to dispose the objections raised by the assessee to the initiation of proceedings under section 147. He pointed out that there was no restriction for initiating

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

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

ITA 166/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153CSection 250Section 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 25/07/2022 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

Gaurav Logistics, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1111/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Logistics, Income Tax Officer 32, Gaurav Vara, New Avadi Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffg-1902-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Dated 14.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Memorandum Of Addition Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of Gaurav Logistics

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250

Counsel for the assessee filed a memorandum of addition grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 of Gaurav Logistics the Act. He vehemently argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer ... Memorandum of additional grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised legal issue of assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Since the additional grounds raised by the assessee relate to a pure legal issue, which does require examination

Kusum Jagannath Amin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

individual and earned income under the head salary, capital gains and other sources. The assessee’s case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 24/03/2023. In response to said notice, assessee filed its return of income on 03/07/2023 declaring total income of Rs.10,540/-. Subsequently

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4504/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-27, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section ... total income of Rs 5,85,090/- on 20/08/2016. 2.1 The assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened vide issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 19/05/2021, under the unamended provisions of the Act by seeking approval of JCIT Range, 27(3) under section

Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

ITA 4503/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)Section 69C

TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income- tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under section 148; d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine ... weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving

Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)Section 69C

Tukaram Vinayak, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 3362/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

liable to be quashed; 2.4. The CIT(A) AO failed to appreciate that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act without a valid sanction are bad in law. The AO failed to appreciate that even if such sanction has been

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khodiyar Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3029/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Is Whether The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Restricting The Penalty To The Tax Sought To Be Evaded On An Addition Of ₹5,59,500/–, As Against The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer On The Entire

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

allegedly availed accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchases aggregating to ₹1,86,50,000/–, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 on 27/03/2014. 3. In the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire purchases of ₹1,86,50,000/– treating them

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Amit Sampathraj Shah, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10Section 143Section 148

Rs.86,36,434/-. Intimation under section 143 (1)(a) was issued accepting the returned income. 2.1 Subsequently the assessment was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 on 31/03/2021. In response to said notice assessee filed it return of income on 06/04/2021 declaring income as per original return of income ... following legal issue: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the sanction of team by you before issuing the notice under section 148 dated 31/03/2021 is invalid and bad in law as the same was not in accordance with the mandate of section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 602/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table ... year. Thus, non- compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under Section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with

Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt Ltd in Liquidation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

ITA 1581/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 33(5)Section 52Section 53

declaring at total income at Rs.5,63,29,750/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for escaping assessment on Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd-In Liquidation vs. DCIT account

Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt Ltd-in Liquidation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

ITA 1580/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 33(5)Section 52Section 53

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vikash Bhwan Delhi vs. Sumit Chhabra, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3879/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrasumit Chhabra Vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Hno. 3, Kiran Vihar, Vikas Bhawan Karkardooma,, Anand Delhi Vihar, S.O. Anand Vihar East Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vikash Bhawan Vs. Sumit Chhabra Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, H. No. 3, Kiran Vihar, D Block, Vikash Bhawan, Karkardooma, I.P. Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110092 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 69C

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 3556 & 3879/Del/2024 Sumit Chhabra (AY: 2018-19) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G

Sumit Chhabra, Kiran Vihar, East Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Vikas Bhawan Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3556/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 69C

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 3556 & 3879/Del/2024 Sumit Chhabra (AY: 2018-19) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

ITA 3235/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

possession during the first round of assessment. Under such circumstances, the Assessing Officer cannot have any jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration, more particularly when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period ... view of foregoing reasons, various case laws on the issue and considering the facts of the case, impugned reassessment proceedings 6 initiated vide notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 are not tenable in law, and is accordingly quashed. Grounds of appeal related to validity of reassessment notice