“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

Jignesh Suresh Shah, Palghar vs. ITO Ward-1, Palghar

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

ITA 3832/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69ASection 69C

reopened under section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the Revenue Department and consequently notice under section 148 of 2 Shri Jignesh Suresh Shah the Act dated 28.03.2019 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed ... receipts as revised by the assessee to the tune of Rs.2,16,41,600/- as declared in the ITR filed, in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, exceeds the turnover limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as prescribed under section 44AA and 44AB

DCIT 19 3, Mumbai vs. Sanjiv Mahendra Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 3515/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

correctness of the material is not to 10 CO No. 19/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 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 belief that income has escaped assessment is sufficient for initiation

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3176/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

upheld by the learned CIT(A) are bad in the eyes of law, as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

Parulben Vijaykumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

under Section 139 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened for assessment and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 22.03.2022 declaring total income ... placed reliance on the observations made by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the penalty and submitted that in case notice under Section 148 of the Act had not been issued to the assessee, then clearly this amount would have escaped taxation and the assessee would never

M/S. Shakti Infra, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 296/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shakti Infra, Vs. Ff/14, Shreem Complex, Income-Tax Officer, Opp. Mahindra Gujarat Circle 1(2)(1) Tractors, Vishvamitri, Vadodara, Vadodara Gujarat – 390011 Pan : Abmfs 3957 M अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 28.02.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development. In The Present Case, The Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated By Issuing A Show-Cause Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Dated 30Th March 2016. The Assessment Was Finally Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act Dated 16Th December 2016 After Making The Following Addition:

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr DR

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

construction and development. In the present case, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing a show-cause notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2016. The assessment was finally framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated

Kuna Impex Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1053/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

seen that in the garb of high share premium the assessee company has introduced it’s own undisclosed income. Accordingly, the A.O. issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and initiated re-assessment proceedings. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished names of shareholders

Sai Kiran Sanukam, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly

ITA 390/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri V. Venkata Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44A

Learned Assessing Officer stated that the assessee filed return of income beyond thirty days from the date of notice under section 148 of the Act and treated the return as nonest and proceeded to add the entire commission income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned

Srujitha Annapareddy, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

capital gains through managed trading of shares. Thus, the whole exercise shows a predetermined mind on the part of the A0 to issue notice under section 148 and complete lack of application of mind on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing without carrying out any further examination/verification and that

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 view

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hak Hiring Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3872/MUM/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer,Ward-12(2)(1), Room No.145, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 --- Appellant Vs. Hak Hiring Pvt. Ltd. 606, Diago D. Sherly Rajan Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Aabch-2001-C --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Chhajed

Section 143Section 148Section 68

assessment year 2012- 13. Based on this information, the assessing officer reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 3. Before the assessing officer, the assessee contended that it has not received the Rs.5 crores during the relevant assessment year

Vibha Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 760/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

depreciation and the disallowance under Section 14A of the said Act. In our view, the additional reasons could not have been recorded. The notice under Section 148 would stand or fall depending upon the reasons prior to the issuance of the notice. In the present case, according to the learned ... counsel for the respondent/Assessee, no notice under Section 148 of the said Act has been issued pertaining to the purported additional reasons which were allegedly recorded sometime in October 2010 and served upon the Assessee on 29.10.2010. Therefore, the additional reasons cannot be looked into for the purposes of determining

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 27(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is allowed

ITA 3688/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Ar Acit, Circle- 27(1) Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 225/226 Commodity Exchange, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Plot No.2/3/4 Sector-17, Vashi, Complex,Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai -400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Banps6548H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

information received from the investigation wing on 8th March 2017, that assessee has carried out high value credit transaction of ₹6 crores. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31st March 2017. Assessee requested for the reason of reopening which were provided to the assessee-raised

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

therefore, the return of income filed by the assessee on 10th September, 2010, of ₹6,25,478/- was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and subsequently, reassessment order was passed wherein 12.5% of bogus purchases amounting to ₹10,28,586/- was added and total income

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

Subsequently, based on assessment proceedings for AY 2006-07, case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 by issuing a notice under section 148, dated 26.03.2009. 4. On the above stated facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that case of the assessee has been reopened beyond the four

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

Munirabanu Mohammed Safi Shaikh, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 680/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Accordingly, in order to examine the source of cash deposits and other credits, the AO reopened the case by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 28.03.2018. Thereafter, a series of statutory notices under Section 142(1) on various dates, as recorded in the assessment order were