← 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

Jagdish Parshad Jain, Panipat vs. DCIT Central Circle Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

land sold was capital asset and no income from capital gain was shown in the return from transaction of immoveable property, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 06.01.2014 was issued for escapement of income. The assessee filed reply dated 26.02.2014 stating that return filed

Sunil Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1215/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69

Subsequently, Page 2 of 11 ITA No. 1215/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Varun Gupta Vs. ITO the assessee was issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] dated 28.03.2019 regarding an investment of Rs. 77,00,000/- in immovable property. The assessee

Jatinder Nath, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ludhiana

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 729/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

ascertainable but certain FDs, time deposits etc. were noticed from the accounts of a Co-operative Society. Therefore, he issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and invited the explanation of the assessee as to why additions be not made. Notice was not served upon

Jatinder Nath, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ludhiana, Rishi Nagar

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 728/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

ascertainable but certain FDs, time deposits etc. were noticed from the accounts of a Co-operative Society. Therefore, he issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and invited the explanation of the assessee as to why additions be not made. Notice was not served upon

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

could have been issued upto 31.03.2000. Therefore, a valid Return of income was pending as on 15.03.2000. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 15.03.2000 when a valid Return under Section 139(4) was pending. In this case the Return was filed and the same is pending, which

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

could have been issued upto 31.03.2000. Therefore, a valid Return of income was pending as on 15.03.2000. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 15.03.2000 when a valid Return under Section 139(4) was pending. In this case the Return was filed and the same is pending, which

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"].

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Consequently, the AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 28/03/2019. In response to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed his return of income on 22/05/2019, declaring ... assessment was completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, treating the return of income filed after the issuance of notice under Section 148 as non-compliant due to delayed filing. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) who passed an order dismissing the appeal

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Nishan Govindbhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1641/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 14Section 148Section 149Section 69

ending on 31.03.2021. However, the ITO vs. Nishan Govindbhai Thakkar Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– Ld. AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022, which was beyond the stipulated period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year ... assessee and quashed the notice dated 31.07.2022 as being barred by limitation, with the following observations: “6.3) The time limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is proposed to be provided in section 149 of the Act and is as below: 149. (1) No notice under

Vinpack Agro Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ITO 4(1)(4) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 689/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

void-ab-initio since the learned Assessing Officer, being aware of the struck-off status of the Appellant, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and completed the assessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. 3. The assessee has not filed its return of income under Section ... Section 148 of the Act. 3.1 The Assessing Officer was satisfied that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and thus issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2017 after taking prior approval of the PCIT-4 Ahmedabad which was served on 31.03.2017 on e-mail address

Smt. Janakba Maheshdan Gadhvi, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 953/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act with prior approval of the PCIT and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.03.2017 was served upon the assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act alongwith Questionnaire ... issued on 15.06.2017 and was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 04.11.2017 the assessee filed return of income thereby declaring taxable income at Nil and share in agriculture income at Rs.1,49,000/-. Notice under Section

Smt. Janakba Maheshdan Gadhvi, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1101/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act with prior approval of the PCIT and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.03.2017 was served upon the assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act alongwith Questionnaire ... issued on 15.06.2017 and was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 04.11.2017 the assessee filed return of income thereby declaring taxable income at Nil and share in agriculture income at Rs.1,49,000/-. Notice under Section

Ramakrishnan Vinayan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3209/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Mathaw, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 274

principles of natural justice and hence, deserves to be quashed in toto. 4. The learned AO has erred in law by not serving notice under section 148 to the Appellant on time at the address of the Appellant in the manner prescribed and only serving show cause notice through hand

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

that such reassessment proceedings should be treated as bad in law. 2. The AO had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 of the Act. The appellant prays that such reassessment proceedings should ... where the assessee has carried out short selling to the tune of Rs. 11,21,79,982/-. Accordingly the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 28.06.2021. Subsequently, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) Circle 3(1)(2), Mumabi

ITA 2710/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

that such reassessment proceedings should be treated as bad in law. 2. The AO had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 of the Act. The appellant prays that such reassessment proceedings should ... where the assessee has carried out short selling to the tune of Rs. 11,21,79,982/-. Accordingly the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 28.06.2021. Subsequently, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68Section 90

present the arguments with regard to Ground No.2 wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings for the reason that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 is barred by limitation. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated in Singapore and is registered as Foreign Portfolio ... under section 148A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 28.07.2022 and a notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. The AO passed the draft assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(1) on 19.05.2023 wherein

Shital Dhorda, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4625/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito – 22(3)(3) Shital Dhorda 408, Piramal Chambers 1002, 10Th Floor, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Vibgyor, S.V. Road, 400012. Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Ajvpd0456H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By Shir Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 04.07.2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’), For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

High Courts and, hence, the belief cannot be valid in law. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in assuming jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act without any 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment and has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the Appellant

Satish Kumar Agrawal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 145/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satish Kumar Agrawal 3B, Heav Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Adqpa1785K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, section 148A(b) of the Act contemplates that the AO shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time ... issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case

Shelly Bansal, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

ITA 976/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Bajwa Developers Ltd. Basis such 2 information and in absence of response from the assessee to the notice issued under section 133(6), notice under section 148 was issued on 30/03/2021 and thereafter, in response to the notice issued by the AO, the assessee denied the transaction stating that

Anish Garg, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(4)

jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 of the Act. 5. During the course of hearing, the Id AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the AO merely on presumption without any material much less incriminating material on record to form the opinion of escapement ... deserves to be set aside. 5.1 In this regard, reference was drawn to the reasons so recorded by the AO before issuing of notice under section 148 and the contents thereof read as under: “During the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 certain incriminating

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6113/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri D.C. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

various grounds of appeal on record, the assessee has raised several issues both on legal and factual matters relating to the reassessment order. Notice under section 148 of the Act is claimed to be issued without taking approval under section 151. Besides, reopening is merely based on information received from