← 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

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a) But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing ... form a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer and therefore, this being a case, the Assessing Officer is justified in issuing notice under section 148 to reopen the assessment and therefore, the challenge contained in the petition being de void of merits, same deserves to be dismissed [Para

Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1936/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has carried out various transactions as per the details. Subsequently notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 16.02.2023 but the assessee has not filed return of income under Section

Harshang Kaushikkumar Rami, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1316/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

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

assessee’s case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 with prior approval of the Competent Authorities. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021 which was duly served to the assessee. The assessee did not respond and, therefore

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

tangible material. Consequently, the formation of a reasonable belief regarding the escapement of income for reopening of the assessment and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act are illegal and void ab initio. 24 22. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Bhimabai Ramkrishna Gharat, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thane

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6981/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y. : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

land admeasuring 4080 sq. mtrs. Total Rs. 3,18,08,220/- 4. On the basis of the information received, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) to the appellant on 23.03.2018 followed by a notice under Section 142(1) issued

Nitinbhai Panchabhai Dhakecha, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 399/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. ssment by issuing notice under section 148 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Magna Homes, Hyderabad

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

ITA 327/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Magna Homes, Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Pan : Aapfg5917K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 57/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd.'s case (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court ... that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, once he found that the two grounds mentioned in the notice under section 148 were incorrect or non-existent. The decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Atlas Cycle Industries' case (supra) and of the Rajasthan

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd.'s case (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court ... that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, once he found that the two grounds mentioned in the notice under section 148 were incorrect or non-existent. The decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Atlas Cycle Industries' case (supra) and of the Rajasthan

Sockalingam (HUF), Madurai vs. ACIT, Cirrcle - 1, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "याियक

Destiny Star (India) Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT-Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6430/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj JaiswalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 7

grounds of appeal. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming issuance of notice under section 148, even though there is no new tangible material for reopening. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

declaring a NIL income, after claiming exemption under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The initial notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2016-17 was issued on 28.06.2021. The said notice was unsustainable as it was issued in accordance with the statutory regime ... petitioner's case that the said notice is barred by limitation. 9. It is material to note that the original notice under Section 148 of the Act [deemed to be a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in terms of the decision in the case

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 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), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

proper return. 3. BECAUSE furnishing of letter requesting to treat the return filed originally as return in compliance to notice under section 148 is a valid return and the CIT(A) has erred in law in observing that the same in not compliance of notice issued under section 148 ... notice dated 11.02.2008, as the Id. Assessing Officer himself had issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, after the issuance of notice under section 148, requiring the appellant to prepare true and correct return and file the same before him. 5. BECAUSE in view of the admitted facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(2), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Infotech Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

assessee disclosed an additional income of `2.03 crore. The Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued on 31/03/2021 which was served upon the assessee. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed return of income

Sanjay Umarshi Dand, Malkapur vs. PCIT-1, Nagpur

ITA 321/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

Hence, the assessee’s case was re-opened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Notices were also issued under section 142(1) of the Act which were served upon the assessee. The assessee, in response ... notice under section 148 of the Act, filed his return of income on 28/12/2021, which was treated as invalid by the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that the nature of business of the assessee is agro based industries. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee was provided enough opportunities

M/S. Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1848/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1848/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Latur. Adarsh Colony, Old Ausa Road, Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabaa2265P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19Dated 24.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Without Prejudice To Other Grounds & On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings So Completed Are Invalid Since The Addition Is Made On An Issue Different Than That For Which Case Was Re-Opened. Since, The Issue Of Re-Opening Did Not Survive The Assessment Proceedings Becomes Void-Ab-Initio. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated & Completed Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 80P

which is at page no.11 to 13 of the paper book. Assessee pleaded that there is no escapement of income and hence no notice under section 148 4 should be issued. The Assessing Officer i.e.ITO, Ward-1, Latur passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated ... Members etc., it is required to make verification of the facts of the case .It is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Then, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 06.04.2022 with the approval of Principal Commissioner

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1742/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1742/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shakeel Abdul Azeez V The Income Tax Officer, Mohammad, S Ward-1(1), Jalgaon. Kachchi Chawl, Indira Nagar, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Byfpm1596K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay V. Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under

Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 69A

time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted thatin the case of Assessee, notice under section 148 ITA No.1742/PUN/2024 [A] has been issued based on the information received from ACIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai that search and seizure took place ... Society Limited, wherein during the search and seizure, during documents evidencing cash deposits, by assessee were found. Ld.AR submitted that in this case, notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. Ld.AR further submitted that since information received during the course of search, in the case

Saraswati Mukund Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Thane, Mumbai

ITA 3316/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

required in this case to look into the facts in order to ascertain whether the pre-condition for the issue of a valid notice under section 148 has been fulfilled or not. We are satisfied on the facts of the present case that reopening is sought on the basis

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 263

income which had escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and where reassessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction is confined

Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT-27. Mumbai which was not the correct specified authority' as per Section 151 (amended with ... issuing the notice uls. 148. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice under Section 148 although there was no 'information' (as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 148) which was in existence. 5.On the facts and circumstances