← 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

Sukumar Dhanapal, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1724/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1724/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 121/47, Singanna Chetty Street, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Atnpd5850F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 59 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition In The Form Of Notarized 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 2

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the assessee has neither filed return of income nor reply to the notice under section 148 of the Act or any other material evidence on account of expenses related to the cash deposit. Based on the materials available

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1710/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

assessee received an amount of ₹.48,30,000/- by way of rental receipt from Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1709/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

assessee received an amount of ₹.48,30,000/- by way of rental receipt from Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1708/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

assessee received an amount of ₹.48,30,000/- by way of rental receipt from Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1707/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

assessee received an amount of ₹.48,30,000/- by way of rental receipt from Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

Section 120Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292B

notice u/s 148, and is not on the merits of the case. The assessee had filed his return of income for Rs.17960490. The notice under section 148 dated 31/3/2021 was issued by ITO Ward 36(1) Kolkata, and the assessment was finally completed facelessly by NFAC Delhi. The assessees argument ... since the ITO was not vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the assessee (given its income was Rs.1,79,60,490) the notice under section 148 initiating the assessment is bad in law which in turn vitiates the entire assessment dated 7/11/2023. It has been pointed out that

Manipal Financial Services, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward Xv(4), Chennai

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

ITA 947/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:947/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 Manipal Financial Services, The Income Tax Officer, 328, Plaza Centre, Business Ward Xv(4), Vs. 129 Gn Chetty Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aakfm 7449R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R.Anita, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1061661390(1) Dated 28.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward Xv(4), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06 U/S.147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 25.03.2013. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.147 Of The Act & Consequently Confirmed The Reassessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47

where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same view was taken by the Gujarat ... opinion, we have to see the law prevailing on the date of issue of the notice under Section 148, i.e., November 20, 1998. Admittedly, by that date, the new Section 147 has come into force and, hence, in our opinion, it is the new Section 147 which will apply