“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

Jugal Chandra Saikia, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/GTY/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 250Section 254

income. By dint of the aforesaid charge-sheets his case was re-opened vide notice under section 148 dated 30.05.2001 and the return in response was filed on 27.02.2003. 6.0 In the original assessment order dated 31.03.2003 under section 143(3)/147 (kindly refer to Enclosure-82 page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cent Circle -1(3), Nagpur vs. Radhika Metals and Minerals, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 24/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

There was a survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of assessee on 25/08/2021. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 17/01/2023, declaring total income

Assistant Commissioner Income Tax-Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. Radhika Metals and Minerals, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 23/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

search action under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted in Radhika Group of cases on 13/04/2023. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 30/04/2023, and declaring total income

DCIT Cent. Circle 1(3), Nagpur vs. Mor Alloys Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 18/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

survey action under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on the Radhika Group of caseson 25/08/2021. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee declared income of ` 4,94,39,071. The case was selected

DCIT Cent, Circle 1(3), Nagpur vs. Radhika Vegetable Oils Pvt Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69A

search and survey action was also conducted on 25/08/2021, at the office premises of the assessee and factory premises at Viziyanagaram. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee declared income of ` 2,54,08,560. The case was selected for compulsory

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cent. Circle-1(3), Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Nagpur vs. Mor Alloys Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

action under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on the Radhika Group of cases on 25/08/2021. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee declared income of `4,59,57,916. The case was selected

Shriram Narayan Tikde, Nagpur vs. Income Tax, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

ITA 89/NAG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 68

assessment year 2008–09. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The learned AO erred in Issuing notice under section 148 and assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned AO erred

Manish Kumar Jaisinghani, Prabhat Plaza vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing officer erred in issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming such issuance of notice, which is without proper sanction. Since, notice ... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act without any reason to believe of his own and merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing and without

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 8.3 In the instant case, revised income (offered in the return filed in response to the notice under section 148) is more than the income returned in the original return of income. This clearly shows that appellant has concealed particulars of income. Even

Syed Asim, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1888/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1885, 1886, 1887 & 1888/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Syed Asim, The Income Tax Officer, New No.4, Old No.2, Chandralekha Vs. Non Corporate Ward-3(3), Muthusamy Mudaliar Street, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aveps 3501P]

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

facts and circumstances of the case and in any case violative of principles of equity and natural justice. 2. The Notice under section 148 does not mention about the approval obtained from the Joint Commissioner. 3. The assessing officer has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 for the following reasons

Syed Asim, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1887/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Syed Asim, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1886/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Syed Asim, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1885/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shivamogga vs. Suvarna, Shivamogga

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

ITA 906/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

respective accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a detailed scrutiny of the material submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under Section 148 issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing

Mr. Ramlal G. Suthar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 3224/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ramlal G Suthar Vs Ito, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar A/704, Riddhi Siddhi Complex Near S.T. Stand, M.G. Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Sukarwadi, Borivali (E), 020 Mumbai-400 066 Pan :Afvpm2258J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagve (SR DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

before us. 4. The Ld.AR filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The Ld.AR challenged the jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 / 151 of the Act. The notice was duly issued with the approval of the Principal CIT-2, Mumbai, vide reference No.Pr ... basis of the modern technological tools. The Ld.AR only focused his argument related to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and the approval taken from PCIT is against the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

Rekh Chand Nahta, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 3/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rekh Chand Nahta House No.97, Gurudwara Road, Jagdalpur, Bastar-494 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aplpn0667E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

allowing for this procedural hindrance. 5.6 It was maintained that after the assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice under Section 148, the AO was required to issue a notice under Section 143(2) to assume jurisdiction for scrutiny, but no such notice was issued

Sh. Tilak Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sanat Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

namely ; a) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO vide which assessment was reopened by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is pertinent to submit that notice under Section 148 was not properly served upon the address ... notices were not replied by the assessee nor he filed the return for this year. Therefore, on 30.03.2018, ld. AO has issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act vide which the assessment of the assessee was reopened. This notice remained un-replied. However, the neighbour

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Sharad Nagnath Rajbhoj, Pune

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5661/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit, Central Circle – 6(1), Room No.445, 4Th Floor, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Abapr6416N V/S Sharad Nagnath Rajbhoj, 502 Dsk Haiyali Phase-Ii, ……………… Respondent Modi Baug, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411005 Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajshirke Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Rucha Group run by Shri Prashant Nilawar, GNP Group run by Shri Girish Pawar and Jairaj Group run by Shri Jairaj Shah, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 14/03/2023 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. In response

M/S. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumararvind Bansal, Vs. Ito, 15, Second Floor, Sainik Ward-44(1), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpb8185E

For Appellant: Sr. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149ASection 68

take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was See State ... surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime

Shashi Kannaujiya, Bareilly vs. ITO-2(2), Bareilly

ITA 598/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Shashi Kannaujiya V. Income Tax Officer 2(2) D/O Ashok Kannaujiya Bareilly Mohalla Para, Faridpur Bareilly Tan/Pan:Ccopk6865K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Received Information On Its Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms” That The Assessee Had Sold Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.93,40,000/- & Earned A Salary Income Of Rs.36,320/- From Bandobast Adhikari Chakbandi, Pilibhit In The Year Under Consideration. Accordingly, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 147/148A

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

proceedings were initiated under section 147/148A ITA No.598/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 7 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, requiring the assessee to file her return of income. Although the assessee ... return of income in compliance to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee stated before the Assessing Officer (AO), vide letter dated 12.01.2023 that the alleged sale of property for Rs.93,40,000/- was not made by her. However, from the perusal of the title deed