“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

Beena, Naraingarh vs. ITO Ward 1, Ambala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand

ITA 306/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yad Ram Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 was reopened under section 147 of the Act, after obtaining necessary approval of Ld. PCIT, Panchkula. 2.1 That notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 14/03/2019 calling upon the assessee to file the return for the A.Y. 2012-13 as the record ... showed that no return whatsoever was filed by her. Even after notice under section 148 no return was filed. 2.2 The assessee not only failed to comply with the notice under section 148 but also failed to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1). The notices unde section

Gayatri Creatives, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2) Now Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

shown in the Profit & Loss Account. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessee’s case under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 15.03.2017 and the same was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under ... Section 148 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the original return should be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested for reasons for reopening which was forwarded to the assessee on 13.06.2017. The assessee objected

The JCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Shantilal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

ITA 1139/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

sale, claiming the land was not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The AO, after issuing a notice under Section 148, computed a short-term capital gain of Rs. 54,37,086/- on the sale of the land, holding that the land was purchased

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

cannot be permitted to avail of the extended time limit assessment has elapsed on 31.3.2001, prior to issue of notice u/s 148. The notice under section 148 dated 9.12.2002 was thus an arbitrary exercise of power and a review of proceedings impermissible in law..." Conclusion: "Department cannot be permitted ... Taxmann.com 17(Delhi)”. Similar view was taken in “Khubchandani Healthparks (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Mumbai”, wherein it was held that notice under Section 148 could be challenged as being without jurisdiction for absence of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment even in case where assessment

Sh. Puneet Narang, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 870/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: AO in response to notice issued under section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act however, default was same and, therefore penalty of Rs.10,000 could be imposed for first default made by the appellant in this regard only. As penalty under section 272A(1) (d) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143 (2), that remained not complied with, on the part of the appellant. The provisions of section 272A (1) (d) are of deterrent in nature and not for earning revenue, therefo

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 272ASection 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

There is no dispute that the assessee has neither filed any return of income nor appeared before the AO in response to the notice under section 148 as well as notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The AO has initiated the proceedings under section

Shakuntla Devi, Tijara vs. Income Tax Officer, Riico Industrial Area, Bhiwadi

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 864/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69B

revenue authority and the documents placed on record and judgement cited by the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been issued with the approval of PCIT Alwar and these facts have been mentioned by AO in para number ... basis of material / information available on record.’’ It is noted in this case that no assessment was completed earlier prior to issuance of notice under section 148 on 28. 03. 18. Since the relevant assessment year being 2014-15, therefore in such case approval was required under section

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

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

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ in a fit case to restrain the assessing authority from proceeding with the notice under section 148, the GKN's case (supra) does lay down that ordinarily the procedure to be followed would be as indicated in the GKN case

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee has received sale consideration from entity of Sh. Vipin Kumar Garg. It is well settled that at the time of issuing notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer is only required to reach a tentative or prima facie belief regarding escapement of income and that requirement is satisfied ... reasons for reopening an assessment has to be tested/examined only on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cannot be improved upon and/or supplemented much less substituted by affidavit

Anilkumar A. Tiwari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2496/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrianikesh Banerjee, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

basis of affidavits submitted by them on the issue in hand of purchase of row house. Further the notice under section 148 of the act was issued to the assessee only on the basis of the affidavits submitted by Mr. Pillai and projected balance sheet submitted ... assessee, which was disclosed in his balance sheet. Based on this the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act. The assessee denied having paid any sum except Rs. 11,011/- to the builder Ravi Development. The learned AO issued notice under

Jet Infraventure Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2337/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Gunjan H Kakkad

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

considering the fact section 147 r.w. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 without considering the fact that assessing officer has not issued valid notice under section 148 of the g officer has not issued valid notice under section 148 of the g officer has not issued valid notice under section

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is receipt of dividend income from the said mutual fund. Therefore, the AO reopened the assessee's case by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 ... dated 04.05.2022) the notice under section 148 was treated as notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. After considering the objections filed by the assessee, the AO passed an order under section 148A(b) on 27.07.2022 stating that the dividend income received by the assessee from JM Financial

Jayantilal Patel (Legal Heir of Late Gopalbhai Arjan Patel), Pune vs. ITO- 30(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2051/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Sh Gopalbhai Arjan Patel Through Ito-30(1)(4), Legal Heir Sh Jayantilal Gopalbhai Patel Pratyashakar Bhavan, C- Flat No. 301-401, Patel Wood Products, Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Shivkrupa Buildign, Sr. No. 58 4 2, Complex, Bandra East, Gangadham Katraj Road, Kondhwa, Mumbai-400051. Pune-411048. Pan No. Aadpp 9057 F (Deceased) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Abhilash HirenFor Respondent: 11/07/2024

Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

facts and circumstances of the, case by not issuing and se circumstances of the, case by not issuing and serving notice under rving notice under section 148 to all the legal heirs (despite having knowledge of the same) section 148 to all the legal heirs (despite having knowledge

Jet Infraventure Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1020/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gunjan H KakkadFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

order under section 147 r.w. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 without considering the fact that assessing officer has not issued valid notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as well as not properly considering the reply submitted by Samyak Exim Private Limited in response to Notice

Shakuntala, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9088/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ms Tanya &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 46ASection 69

void ab-initio on, inter alia, the grounds that: a) that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are not valid; b) the notice under section 148 was not served on the Appellant and c) It is based on factually erroneous premises and built upon surmises and conjectures

Shri Karshni Metals Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(3), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5079/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmai.T.A. No. 5079/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv and Ms

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

held that if the Department has chosen not to proceed under Section 153C, no right is created to the petitioner for getting the notice under Section 148 quashed. Moreover, learned Single Judge was not having the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell ... Saloni Prakash Kumar (supra) is of no help to the respondents. The High Court held that Section 153C does not preclude issuance of notice under Section 148. The field of applicability of two sections was not the issue before the Court. 38. The petitioner relied upon the decision

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

paper book at page 90-93. Reasons are dt. 15/02/2021. Page 21 to 24 of written submissions of Ld. DR / Department. 6. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assesse which is dt. 01/03/2021 wherein the Department of Income Tax has stated that they have ... Delhi. However the case was reopened under section 148 of the Act vide notice dt. 01/03/2021. Return has been filed in response to notice under section 148 on 18/03/2021. Copy of the reason was supplied to assessee. Objection to the same was filed alongwith other evidence regarding genuineness

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Therefore, we see considerable force in the plea of the assessee for non maintainability of re-assessment order passed in pursuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act which is vitiated in law. Page 18 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022 ... Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. 10. Hence, the re-assessment notice under Section 148 giving rise to the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act is quashed and consequently the re-assessment order appeal against is also similarly quashed and set aside. 11. The objection on assumption of jurisdiction under Section

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Fabrikant Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkiFor Respondent: Ms Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

noted that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has obtained accommodation entries (sales) from parties who are bogus concerns/companies. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 28/03/2014 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 24/02/2015 passed under