← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kalyan vs. Mukesh Odhavji Kamaliya, Pune

In the result appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2767/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 2767/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vs. Ito, Mukesh Odhavji Kamaliya Ward 3(2) Flat No. 22, Building E2 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Prem Park, Masulkar Colony Near Murbad Road, Kalyan-W Corporation Maharashtra-421 301. Bank, Pune-411 018 Pan : Axzpk8408L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (2), Kalyan (The Learned Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year 2010 – 11 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 29/5/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer On 19/2/2015 Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Partly Allowed. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Is Aggrieved & Is In Appeal Before Us. 2. The Solitary Ground Of The Appeal Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is That The Learned Cit – A Has Erred In Restricting The Disallowance To 25% Of Purchases Instead Of Hundred Percent Of Purchases Of Rs. 777,174/– From Non-Existent Vendor’S By Not Following The Decision Of The Honourable Gujarat High Court In Case Of Nk Proteins Ltd Versus Dcit Where In It Has Been Held That Once The Purchases Are Bogus, The Addition Should Be Made On The Entire Purchases & Not Only The Page 1 Of 4

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

found to be beneficiary with respect to the purchases of 7,77,174/– with respect to 5 such hawala dealers and therefore the notice under section 148 of the act was issued to the assessee. The assessee reiterated his return of income. Notice under section

Kamlesh Ghanshyamdas Thawani, Kubernagar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Income Tax Office, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan

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

ITA 618/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148Section 194HSection 28Section 37(1)Section 40

assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the said transactions and has taken benefit to the dune of Rs.3,71,367/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2022 and duly served upon the assessee. The statutory notices were also issued and served upon the assessee

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 2/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 132Section 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.” 4. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. He is a partner in the partnership

Ms M K Shah and Co., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 218/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)Section 69A

tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act (c) The notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on the direction of DDIT (Inv), Unit 1(2), Ahmedabad and not on the basis of any belief of Assessing

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

ITA 1977/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari & Mihir ChitaliaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

binding directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and not provided the original reasons for reopening recorded at the time of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and thereby the entire reopening proceedings is bad in law; 15. ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO erred ... reopening, there was no retrospective amendment introduced in the Act. The amendments were introduced vide Finance Act 2008 and 2009 respectively whereas notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29 May 2006 on which day the amended provisions did not exist in the Act. Further, he submitted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, New Delhi, Delhi vs. India Finsec Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3591/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 158BSection 68

before passing the assessment order for returns furnished on or before October 1, 2005. In respect of returns filed pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act after October 1, 2005, it is mandatory to serve notice under section 143(2) of the Act, within the stipulated time limit

Bharatbhai Kalidas Patel, Sabarkantha vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Present Juridiction the ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 655/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148

individual and filed his return of income on 31.07.2013 declaring total income at Rs.2,99,110/-. The case was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2021. The assessee filed return in response to notice issued under Section 148

Indu Mahendra Shah (L/H of Late Shri Mahendra G. Shah), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 856/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

Supreme Court that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not to be considered at the stage of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The existence of some prima facie material to form a 8 belief that income has escaped assessment is sufficient for initiation

Arvindsinh Ishvarsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 248(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 548

basis of financial transaction undertaken by the assessee and in view of non-filing of return of income. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2019. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold immovable property amounting to Rs.17,00,000/- during the year under consideration

R Ramesh & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed

ITA 107/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suchak Ancheliya CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

reopened under section 147 of the act after recording reasons with the prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of income tax, a notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 27/3/2018. 4. During survey and search conducted in case of one Mr Bhanwar Lal Jain and others ... receipt of information about the bogus purchase bills of obtained by the assessee, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act on 25/3/2019. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the purchases. The assessee could not justify the purchases

R Ramesh & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed

ITA 106/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suchak Ancheliya CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

reopened under section 147 of the act after recording reasons with the prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of income tax, a notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 27/3/2018. 4. During survey and search conducted in case of one Mr Bhanwar Lal Jain and others ... receipt of information about the bogus purchase bills of obtained by the assessee, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act on 25/3/2019. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the purchases. The assessee could not justify the purchases

Mukeshgiri Hiragiri Goswami, Vadodara vs. Shri Harendra Kishore, Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 325/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

after recording the reasons for doing so and obtaining necessary sanction under Section 151 of the Act, from the PCIT. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2019 which was served upon the assessee but the assessee did not comply to the notice under Section 148

Umesh Sumanlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 54

transaction despite issue of notice under Section 133(6) of the Act. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2019 after recoding the reasons and obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority. In response ... notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 18.04.2019 declaring total income of Rs.43,560/-. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was provided and the assessee filed objection to the same which was disposed of through order dated 16.05.2019. Notice under Section

Ritu Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Intl Tax, Gurugram

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 297/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg & Arihant Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

read with section144C(13) of the Act, 1961 are beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the reasons on the basis of which reopening notice under section 148 which was issued. Ld. DR has though relied the assessment order. 3. As we appreciate the facts it comes up that the case

DCIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Ram Kumar Shokeen, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151

under Section 148(2) of the Act dated Nil proposing reopening of the concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. For the purposes of reopening the assessment and issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act, an approval ... drawn with some degree of objectivity on some objective material. The ld. counsel thus submitted that on this ground alone, the issuance of notice under Section 148 based on a cryptic sanction is vitiated and consequently, the re-assessment order framed as a sequel thereto, is rendered

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

view of the fact that the assessee had not filed any such revised return on his own motion. It was only after notice under section 148 was issued by the A.O. that the appellant declared higher income in the return filed in response to the said notice. Had the assessment

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

view of the fact that the assessee had not filed any such revised return on his own motion. It was only after notice under section 148 was issued by the A.O. that the appellant declared higher income in the return filed in response to the said notice. Had the assessment

Kalipada Saha, Hoohly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

view of the fact that the assessee had not filed any such revised return on his own motion. It was only after notice under section 148 was issued by the A.O. that the appellant declared higher income in the return filed in response to the said notice. Had the assessment

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

view of the fact that the assessee had not filed any such revised return on his own motion. It was only after notice under section 148 was issued by the A.O. that the appellant declared higher income in the return filed in response to the said notice. Had the assessment

Devasakayam Aangilappalliparipalana Sabai, Madurai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Madurai

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

ITA 399/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.399/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Devasakayam Aangilappalliparipalana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sabai, 22, Vilacheri Road, Exemptions Ward, Tirupparankundram, Pasumalai, Madurai. Madurai 625 004. [Pan: Aaatd0964E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Effective Issue Arises For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed By The 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

that the assessee responded to the notice dated 28.06.2021 and argued that the assessee sought time to comply with the notice as the notice under section 148 of the Act was not available in their website portal file. He submits that the findings of the Assessing Officer in respect ... Assessing Officer is not justified. 5. According to the ld. DR Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT, the assessee failed to comply with notice under section 148 of the Act in not filing the return of income and for non-compliance thereafter in response to notice under section