← 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

Anil Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3651/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case of the assessee has been selected for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act upon getting approval from the competent authority and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.03.2021 was served upon the assessee. It is relevant to mention that during the above search, it was found ... account ITA Nos.3650 & 3651/Del/2023 Anil Kumar vs. ACIT Asst.Years – 2016-17 & 2017-18 of Laxmi Group and, therefore, finally on 09.03.2021, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee filed its return

Anil Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3650/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case of the assessee has been selected for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act upon getting approval from the competent authority and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.03.2021 was served upon the assessee. It is relevant to mention that during the above search, it was found ... account ITA Nos.3650 & 3651/Del/2023 Anil Kumar vs. ACIT Asst.Years – 2016-17 & 2017-18 of Laxmi Group and, therefore, finally on 09.03.2021, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee filed its return

Shri Nandlal Dharamdas Virwani, Akola vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 271DSection 273BSection 44A

expert, assessee has obtained the audit report before due date and furnished the same along with the return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. 5. The First Appellate Authority has sustained the penalty under section 271B at ` 1,50,000, as imposed by Assessing

Nabhiraj Ratna Balraj by Legal Heir B.R.Rakesh, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

requested for a copy. e) The Supreme Court in G. K. N. Driveshafts [2003] 259 ITR 19 had specifically directed that when a notice under section 148 of the said Act is issued and the noticee files a return and seeks reasons for the issuance of the notice, the Assessing ... dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. These are specific directions given by the Supreme Court in all cases where notices under section 148 of the said Act are issued. f) Reliance is also placed on the decisions rendered in the following cases: • PCIT vs V. Ramaiah

Real Touch Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

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

ITA 4414/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

investment. Assessee filed its return of income on 27.12.2011, reporting total income at Rs.243/-. Subsequently, case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2018 by recording the reasons to believe that assessee had raised share capital by issuing 1,19,050 shares at face value

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4937/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashok Kumar, Vs. Pr.Cit, C/O M/S. Rrr Taxindia, Ghaziabad. D-28, South Extension Part – 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Abppy8405P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ghaziabad Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Dated 29-12-2016 As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding As Under While Passing The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

aside u/s 263 of the Act.” 3. In this case, originally assessment was reopened by giving the following reasons for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) :- “ In this case NON-PAN AIR information has been received that the assessee ... Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This position is not disputed and disturbed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order under Section

Victory Construction Company, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 350/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Victory Construction Company, Income Tax Officer, 7, Amrapali Apartments, Ward-1(3)(5), Nr. Usmanpura Railway Vs Ahmedabad Crossing, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380014 [Pan No.:Aahfv8333J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 68

filed its original return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,52,000/-. The assessment was reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148 dated 26.03.2019. However, the assessee has A.Y. 2012-13 2 not responded to the above notice thereby the Assessing Officer issued three more

The Jt.CIT (OSD) (Exemprion) Circle-2(Actual ITO, Ward-2(4)Rajkot), Ahmedabad vs. Saurashtra Cricket Association, Rajkot

In the result, all the tax appeals fail and are hereby dismissed

ITA 129/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

during the pendency of the petition before this Court. ……. 6. It appears that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 148 in view of the amended provision of Section 2(15) of the Act, 1961 and the sole objection for reopening is such amendment. 7. In view

The Jt.CIT (OSD) (Exemprion) Circle-2(Actual ITO, Ward-2(4))Rajkot, Ahmedabad vs. Saurashtra Cricket Association, Rajkot

In the result, all the tax appeals fail and are hereby dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

during the pendency of the petition before this Court. ……. 6. It appears that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 148 in view of the amended provision of Section 2(15) of the Act, 1961 and the sole objection for reopening is such amendment. 7. In view

Shashidhara, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 959/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Shashidhara, Vs. Ito, C/O Shadakshari Sri Banashakari Nilaya, Ward – 1 & Tps, Kuvempu Road, Besides Mant Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. Pan : Czyps 1448 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gowrish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Gowrish, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Assessment Year 2015-16 and the source of cash paid by the assessee to Shri. L. Venkatesh was to be examined, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Since there was no response to the several notices issued under section

Rajesh Kumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3323/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee vide letter dated 10.05.2016 stated that the return filed on 29.07.2010 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter other statutory notices were issued from time to time in response to which the assessee filed the relevant details

Sh. Satwinder Mohan Sood, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. ITO, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh

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

ITA 308/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

case of the assessee was reopened under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on basis of reasons recorded. 4. A statutory notice under section 148 was issued on 30/03/2018 and that the same was duly served on the assessee. 5. In response to the aforesaid notice dated 30/03/2018

Dipen Hasmukhbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) (New) Previously Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 907/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 139(1) of the Act. After receiving the information, the case was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 24.03.2018. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act the assessee filed return

Sh. Sher Singh, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Alwar

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

ITA 629/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

years. He has not filled return of income. The AO on the basis of information that assessee has sold an immovable property issued notice under section 148 dt.29.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed the return on 30.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs.1,97,170/-. The assessee owned an agricultural land

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

case of Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.)wherein it has been held “Dispute pertains to assessment year 2007-08. The notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has been issued to the petitioner-assessee beyond expiry of four years after the end of the relevant assessment ... Commissioner or Commissioner under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 151. This is an inherent lacunae affecting the very correctness of the notice under Section 148 and is such which is not curable by recourse to Section 292B of the IT Act. The same has also followed recently

Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward - 1 and Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 935/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17 Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1&Tps, Udupi. Floor-1, Srihari Tower, Kanakadasa Road, Udupi-576 101. Pan – Aakcs 4571 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Poojary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 .06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavinstant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023- 24/1063170077(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Assessee A Cooperative Society, Could Not File Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year. Thereafter, On The Basis Of An Information, Revealing That Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.4,24,10,051, Ao Issued Notice U/S 148A To The Assessee. The Ao, Page 2 Of 4 While Framing The Assessment, Observed That The Assessee Is Not Qualified For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act, Relying Upon The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Citizen Co-Operative Society Reported In 397 The Ao Framed The Assessment & Made An Addition Of Rs.48,53,282/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 80P(2)(a)

cases:- a) Sanath Kumar Murali Vs. ITO, [2023] 152 taxmann.com 231.” “It is clear that there is a bar prohibiting the issuance of notice under section 148 of I.T. Act if three years has elapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year unless the case falls under Clause ... Accordingly, no notice under section 148 could be issued after three years from the end of Assessment Year 2016-2017, is subject to the exception of extended period of limitation of three years, but not more than ten years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, if the Assessing Officer

Annasaheb Ganpat Khatal, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result ground number one of the appeals is allowed with above direction

ITA 869/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

that assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 2,264,200/– in his bank of India account in the impugned previous year. Thus, notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 29/3/2018. In response to that return of income was filed on 24/4/2018 declaring a total income

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito. Int Tax Ward Rita Hemchand Gandhi 2(3)(1) Ayodhya Apartments, 17Th Floor, Air India Flat No.101, Ramgali, Vs. Building, Kandivali (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

filed any return of income for assessment year 2013 – 14. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act on 30/3/2021 after recording of the reasons and obtaining necessary approval. The information was received from AIMS module that assessee has made various ... return for the impugned assessment year and as no such response was received from the assessee the reopening was made. In response to notice under section 148 of the act assessee filed return of income on 24/4/2021 declaring total income of ₹ 6,539,260/–. Notice under section

Laxmipati Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4787/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Deputy Director of income tax (investigation) unit that assessee has purchases booked by bogus bills which ultimately lead to suppression of profit. Therefore notice under section 148 of the income tax act was issued on 31/3/2017. This notice was sent through speed post as well as by hand and served