“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

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2522/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

dependent on their erstwhile consultant. That consultant failed to advise and ensure timely filing of the return and audit report. On receipt of notice under Section 148, the assessee engaged a new consultant, promptly got its books audited, and filed the return. It was thus urged that the failure

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2521/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2520/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2519/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

escaped assessment, and accordingly income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019, which issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019, which issued notice under section 148

Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sunidhi Securities & Finance The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 4(2)(1), Mumbai 8Th Floor, Unit-1, Kalpataru Inspire, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Santacruz K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (East), Mumbai – 400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs1657D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shashi Bekal : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Of Reopening The Assessment Merely Based On Reason To Suspect & Not Reason To Believe & Is Therefore Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Treating The Trading In Steel Exchange India Limited Through Recognized Stock Exchange As Bogus Trading Loss. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited

For Appellant: Shri. Shashi Bekal

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in the issuance of Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) with an incorrect sanction under section 151 of the Act in light of the decision

Ritesh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 147

hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 20th March, issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 20th March, issuance of notice under Section 148 ... issuance (supra) makes it clear that at the stage of issuance (supra) makes it clear that at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148, the sufficiency or correctness of the of notice under Section 148, the sufficiency or correctness of the of notice under Section 148, the sufficiency

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs. Pawan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5538/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149

order U/s.148A(d) on 19-7-2022 and issued notice U/s.148 on 20-7- 2022 - It was noted that time period for issuing notice under section 148 expired on 16-6-2022 - Whether thus, impugned notice issued on 20-7-2022, was beyond period of limitation

Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Delhi vs. Pawan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5537/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs. Pawan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5536/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149

DCIT, Delhi vs. Nm Industries Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 4982/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 68

DDIT Investigation Wing -1, Indore, that the assessee has routed its own unexplained money amounting to Rs.3.75 crores in the bank account, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by JAO on 31.03.2021 and subsequently, show cause dated 14.10.2022 was issued. It was observed that funds were routed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S N M Industries Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 4980/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 68

Earthstahl & Alloys Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited 5B Mohini Merline, Jayshree Vihar Pandritarai Mandi Gate, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aacce3567F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

said decision, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had held as follows: “6…………. For issuance of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, there should be tangible material and mandatory compliance of Section 147 of I.T. Act. Proceedings of reassessment has been initiated against company after lapse ... issuance of notice and provisions mentioned therein, in the opinion of this Court, there was no reason/ground available with Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. Issuance of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act to petitioner is not in accordance with the first

Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Alwar

Appeal is allowed on the only legal ground raised before us by Ld

ITA 742/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

order subsequently, on 2.2.2024, relating to quantum proceedings, otherwise, he would have thrown light and discussed factum of service of non service of notice under section 148 of the Act. From the two orders dated 15.2.2023, setting aside the penalties, it does not transpire if the CIT(A) was referring ... notice under section 148 of the Act served by post or on email ID. The fact remains that the penalty orders came to be set aside on the ground that the appellant being an agriculturist in the village, no presumption of service of notice under section 148

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

No.25/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 10 after issuing notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the submission of the assessee was that the return filed by the assessee for the year under consideration on 30.03.2013, vide Acknowledgement ... No.0442205100 be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, requiring the assessee to furnish the details of income and computation, copy of sale and purchase deed of property, computation of Long

Ishrat Beg, Sitapur vs. ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 392/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ishrat Beg V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Akhtar Beg Sitapur Katra Astal, Laharpur Sitapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoypb5773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154BSection 44A

dated 30.03.2017 has discussed an identical issue at length, wherein the question before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was that if a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by an incompetent Officer, i.e., one who had no jurisdiction, mere fact that subsequently on the objection ... assessee with regard to jurisdiction, the matter is transferred to another AO, can valid assessment be made by him without issuing a fresh notice under section 148 of the Act? The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, while referring to another case of CIT ITA No.392/LKW/2023 Page

Hari Singh Chauhan, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

accordingly 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. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee’s Counsel appeared before the AO and filed

Jagdishkumar Amrutlal Thakar, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessment order was passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act upon receipt of information that the assessee had made large cash deposits in his bank account. Despite several notices issued

Bhavesh K Shah, Akota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1), Alkapuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1188/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 44A

Assessing Officer, the above income to the tune of ₹30,14,000/- of the assessee had escaped assessment, and accordingly a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued upon the assessee, but the assessee failed to respond to the said notice. Thereafter, multiple notices under section

Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar, Patan, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69