← All Phrases

“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

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000 + Business income of Rs. 16,77,283 + Receipt of Rs. 23,401 u/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based ... ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non- existent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an assessment order on 24.12.2018 without

Jai Maa Durga Traders, Ballia vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

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

ITA 124/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Jai Maa Durga Traders, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ballia (Appeals), Income Tax Department Pan:Aagfj8468H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.05.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Detailed & Run Into 16 Pages. Accordingly, For Reasons Of Brevity, The Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Being Reproduced In The Order But The Essence Of The Grounds Are That The Unilateral Order In Question Was Excessive, Illegal & Without Justice & That The Complete Details Of Inward Supplies & Outward Supplies Received By The Assessee In The Relevant Year Had Been Submitted, The Accounts Had Been Audited & Audit Report Uploaded On The Portal. The Firm Had Erroneously Been Allotted A Second Pan In The F.Y. 2011-12 On Application For Duplicate Pan & This Second Pan Had Been Furnished To The Bank While The Itr & Tax Audit Report Had Been Submitted On The Existing Pan. As A Result Of This, An Impression Had Been Created That There Were Unexplained Deposits In The Bank Account But The Fact Is That All The Deposits Were 1 Jai Maa Durga Traders A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

scale additions without referring to the material available on record. Finally, the assessment was itself barred by limitation, because in general cases, a notice under section 148 had to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, but in this case the notice had been ... HDFC Bank, Town Hall, Ballia. As the ld. AO found that the assessee had not filed a return of income, he issued a notice under section 148 followed by notices under section 142(1). However, the assessee did not respond to those notices and therefore, the ld. AO completed

Vinod Kumar Jangir, Jhunjhunu vs. Dct, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment

ITA 779/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarmr. Vinod Kumar Jangir, C/O. Yashi Super Market, Vishwakarma Complex, Gandhi Chowk, Distt. Jhunjhunu -333001 Pan No. Arzpj 7960G ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Poonia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) Under the substituted provisions of the IT Act vide Finance Act, 2021, no notice under section 148 can be issued without following the procedure prescribed under section 148A. Along with the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer is required ... condition precedent. [Para 6.2] By way of section 148A, the procedure has now been streamlined and simplified. It provides that before issuing any notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer shall (i) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests

Prithviraj Sanwatraj Kankariya (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 was filed on 04.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.26,34,830/-. The case was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021. The order under Section 147 read with Section 144B

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Venetian Ldf Projects Vs. Acit, Llp, Circle-4(1), 83 Avenue, Sector-83, Gurgaon Vill.- Sihi, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aajfv6462C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

objection 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

Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

8. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed

ITA 999/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (through V.C.)
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

income; that the assessee was one of the beneficieries. Learned CIT(A) observed that since the additions did not survive on technical ground, notice under section 148 of the Act was not sustainable legally. 7. In view of the decision by our own Hon’ble High Court, which squarely applies

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Prakash Chand Kothari, C Scheme

8. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed

ITA 996/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (through V.C.)
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

income; that the assessee was one of the beneficieries. Learned CIT(A) observed that since the additions did not survive on technical ground, notice under section 148 of the Act was not sustainable legally. 7. In view of the decision by our own Hon’ble High Court, which squarely applies

Mohammad Ahatehsham, Raebareli vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 438/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

148A(d) was passed on 29.03.2022 concluding that this was a fit case for reopening of assessment under section 147 and accordingly, a notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148, the assessee filed a return of income on 16.05.2022, admitting ... assessee. In doing so, he pointed out that the assessee had not filed the return voluntarily, but only in response to notice under section 148. Since, the assessee had not produced any evidence, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt

Balraj, Fatehabad, Haryana vs. Ward 1, ITO, Fatehabad, Haryana

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

ITA 887/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eyes of law and are vague. (i) That the CIT(A) has erred in analyzing the fact that there is no live

Raju Shreedhar Ghodake, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

Various grounds have been raised but one of the primary grounds for challenging the notice under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 of the Act both dated 7th April 2022 is that order as well as the notice both mention the authority that has granted approval ... decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court(supra) and ITAT Pune(supra), the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and notice under section 148 are quashed. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6.1 Since we have decided the Ground No.2 in favour

Late Mr Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta (Through Legal Heir Uncle Sunil Shah), Sangali vs. ITO Ward 2(2), ITO Ward Two(Two)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the notice under Section 148 was issued and, as such, the completion of assessment by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the name of deceased person is void ab initio and, thus, the assessment as framed deserves to be quashed.

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order as passed by the Ld. CIT (A) null and void. 2. That since the above assessee had died even before the notice under section 148 was issued and, as such, the completion of assessment by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the name of deceased person is void ab initio

Dinesh Dilip Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2048/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2048/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Dilip Mehta, V The Income Tax Officer, 936 3, Irvin Road, New Nana S Ward-7(1), Pune. Peth, Opp.M Phule High School, Pune – 411002. Pan: Abbpm0414G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor - Dr Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 01.08.2024For Assessment Year2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.69,10,300/- On Account Of Alleged Commission Income U/S 56 Of The Act.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56

terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned." Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime "ofter following the ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A] procedure as required under section 148-A." Although this Court waived ... specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." Considering

R1618 Varadharajapuram Pacs, Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruchirappalli

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

ITA 588/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.588/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 R 1618 Varadharajapuram Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agri. Co-Op. Society, 6/69A, Ward 2, Thirunarayanapuram, Tiruchirapalli. Tiruchirapalli 621 203. [Pan:Aabar2403E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

relevant to the AY 2019-20. The assessee did not file return of income for AY 2019-20. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 after following due procedure under section 148A(d) of the Act followed by notice under section

Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.585/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 13A, 1 Paramasivampalayam, Ward 2(1), Vayakkadu Thottam, Somanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 663. [Pan:Arypb4707C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 242 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

bank accounts is ₹.1.03 crores and the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2013-14. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 followed by notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.07.2021. However, the assessee did not comply

Srinivasan Varatharaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 579/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.579/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srinivasan Varatharaj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Kandan Street, Perambur S.O., Income Tax, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Avjps1866L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sricharan, Ca & : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We

For Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 69

Indian Bank. Accordingly, after passing order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act, besides, issuing notices under section 142(1) of the Act. After verification of details filed against notice under section

Shree Velu Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 560/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.560/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Velu Builders Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block No. 2, Alaka Palazu, 4/219, Income Tax, Poonamallee High Road, Kattupakkam, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 056. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs6653C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Assessment Order Exparte Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

accounting and the expenditure was incorrectly claimed in respect of the income offered @ 56% of work completed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and served on the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice requiring

Dr Anbu Selvan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 332/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.332/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dr. Anbu Selvan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 323, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 011. Chennai. [Pan:Bnqpa3351L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate & Shri B. Harish, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 279 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271

assessee has purchased property at Ambattur and the amount paid of ₹.50,50,000/- needs to be verified. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 30.03.2021. Thereafter, a notice under section 143(2) r.w.s

Shri. Sannappa Ramappa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Davangere

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

ITA 50/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer erred in relying on information obtained during the survey proceedings, which is distinct from the information based on which the VI notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. This fundamental deviation renders the reassessment proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law. The learned Assessing Officer erred

Dandu Jojappa Francis, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2305/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Smt. Richa Bakiwala, CA &
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

following instructions were given. “6.0 Operation of the new section 149 of the Act to identify cases where fresh notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued: 6.1 With respect of operation of new section 149 of the Act, the following may be seen: Hon'ble Supreme Court ... amended by the Finance Act,2021 (before its amendment by the Finance Act, 2022) reads as under:- 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment veal;— if -three years have elapsed from the end of the (a) relevant assessment yea, unless the case falls

Maheboob, Wadi, Tq Chittapur, Dist Kalab vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1770/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Counsel for Revenue
Section 139Section 148Section 194ISection 234A

also made payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 2,32,04,904/- only. Therefore, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 31st March 2021. 7. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 13,26,630/- only. During