“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

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. 5.1 A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response ... were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Green Orchand Farm Houses, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

income returned of Rs.6,39,86,840/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021. In view of the technical glitches in the new Income Tax e-filing portal, the return could

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2751/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)

section 149 of the Act and thereby, vitiating the impugned proceedings and making it liable to be quashed; 3. failed to appreciate that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29 July 2022 issued manually without mentioning the mandatory Document Identification Number and in contravention to the Circular ... which prescribed time limit for notice. The relevant provisions read as under:- "[Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, - (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under

Kamaljit Kaur Chadha, Andheri West vs. Income Tax Officers, Delhi

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1485/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalkamaljit Kaur Chadha, 701/702, Skylark B Wing 4Th Cross Lane, Opp. Green 501, Krystal, 206, Waterfield Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aacpm8648J ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 4(1) (1) R. No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Dhumne, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-7-2012, read as under: 8 Kamaljit Kaur Chadha 149. Time limit for notice. — (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued† for the relevant assessment year, — (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case ... issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

ITA 4758/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

Subsequently, it was found that the assessee was involved in providing accommodation entry to another Shell Company Outstrip Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 31stMarch 2021. Assessee on 7thFebruary 2022, requested the learned Assessing Officer ... filed return of income on 4thMay 2017, at ₹1,33,152/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny for reassessment by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31stMarch 2021. In this case, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

ITA 4757/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

Phool Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Rjn-W-(106)(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 361/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriAshish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

case of CIT vs Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. upholding the view of the ITAT that if there is no valid service of notice under section 148, the reassessment proceedings are null and void as also the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case ... Avtar Singh which held that service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent for making reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the Act. 8. In our view, before issuing the notice under section 148A (b) it was imperative for the AO to have checked if there

Phool Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Rjn-W-(106)(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 360/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriAshish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

Rohan Hemant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 1823/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54F

circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to deal with issue of jurisdiction of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on merit and thereby erred in confirming initiation of proceeding under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under

Rajesh Bhujanga Shetty S, Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 1613/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Sri. Gujjappa, N, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 648/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

income of ₹ 28,43,830.00 after making the payment of due taxes on such income vide dated 6 March 2019 whereas the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on account of escapement of income dated 29 March 2021. Furthermore, the income disclosed by the assessee along with

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

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

accepting returned income at Rs.30,83,479/-. Subsequently, assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated by issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act after recording reasons under Section 148(2) of the Act. After taking statutory approval under Section ... notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to notice under Section 148 of the Act the assessee e-filed her return of income on 08.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.29,97,080/-. Thereafter, notice under Section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 305/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

considering the fact that no reasons were provided to the appellant along with the documents replied upon at the time of issue of notice under section 148. Hence, addition made is not justified at all. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Oasis, Plot No. 29, sector-9, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai. The AO re-opened the assessment based on the above information by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021 stating that he had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessee ... file any return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Ashish Agarwal Vs. Union of India [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 dated 04.05.2022 the AO issued a notice under section

Nitesh Rajhans Singh, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer -26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4114/MUM/2023[BAMPS4588L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

original return of income filed for the year under consideration be considered as a return of income filed in pursuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO provided the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as well as the statement/information on the basis

Shri. Naagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar, Dharawad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 550/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeynagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar The Income Tax Officer Lovely Sweets, Baradan Saal Ward - 2(1), Hubli Hubli Sarafkatta S.O. Vs. Hubli 580020 Pan – Aaupt7785P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060678544(1) Dated 08.02.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Confirmed The Additions Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii) Which Is Against The Facts. 2. The Addition Confirmed Is Against The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act 3. The Beneficial Provision Is Read In A Too Rigid Way So As To Deny The Benefit Conferred By The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

apply on the transaction for purchase of residential plot made on 14.07.2015 – based on which the cases was reopened vide notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has produced the agreement /MOU dated 31st day of July, 2008 along with ... property was Rs. 41,12,500/-. As the property was purchased jointly along with his son, both assessee and his son received notice under Section 148 of the Act proposing to add 50% of the difference between the value of Rs. 41,12,500 and the actual consideration value

Bajrang Lal Muhal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2408/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyabajrang Lal Muhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(5), 973/B, Shalimar Garden Extn. 1, Ghaziabad. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad – 201 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aompm4148M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 10.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.10,19,548/- As Unexplained Investment Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Materials Available On Record. 3. Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Material Available On Record.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Delay Is Attributable Due To The Health Problem Of The Legal

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

case, in an order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the AO passed the following order :- “ Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 28.03.2019 as the assessee failed to explain the source of credit ... card payments of Rs. 10,19,548/- in response to notice issued u/s 133(6) dated 02.01.2019. But no compliance of notice under section 148 has been made by the assessee. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) dated 07.08.2019 was issued fixing compliance on 16.08.2019 which also remained