“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

Loksewa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Buldhana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 253(3)

huge delay of eight years eighty-eight days. In this case, assessee failed to file Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16, therefore, Department issued notice under section 148 on 30.03.2022. One of the issues in the re-assessment proceedings was non-availability of registration under section 12AA of the Act. Assessee

Shah Construction Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the proceedings initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred ... which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd.'s case (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court

Neera Dhupar, Delhi vs. I T O, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3051/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2011-12 Neera Dhupar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), 1E/15, Jhandewalan Noida (Up) Extension, Delhi-1100 55

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee which was never done by the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel for the assessee further submits that this ground of appeal that notice under Section 148 of the Act never served on the assessee was not adjudicated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) to dispose of the specific ground raised by the assessee on service of notice under Section 148 of the Act after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since, the outcome of the decision on service of notices issued

Vinod Sabhapati Pandey, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nagpur

ITA 111/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Sabhapati Pandet, The Income Tax Officer, C/O. Chadda Transport, Ward V Ward-4, Chandrapur. No.05, Manikgarh Cement S Rd, Bakhardi, Gadhchandur, Chandrapur – 442908. Pan: Bgppp8723F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Adv.(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2013-14 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S Vinod Sabhapati Pandet [A]

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44A

said business was already offered to tax under presumptive basis under section 44AE in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in taxing the entire receipts and not the net income embedded which was already offered

Rajendra Gargishankar Mishra, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nagpur

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 236/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

learned AO is bad in law. 2 ITA.No.236/NAG./2022 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred in issuing notice under section 148 without satisfying the prerequisite conditions. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.36

Dori Winery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1145/M/2024 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1145/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dori Winery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 6(2)(1) 366 Dhuru Lodge, Aayakar Bhavan, Veer Savarkar Marg, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400028 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd1400A Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue By : Smt. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Ar.) Date Of Hearing: 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Ar.)

Section 139Section 148Section 196ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37

winery and manufacturing wine from local Grapes. The assessee company filed its return of income for assessment year 2014 – 15 in response to notice under section 148 of the income tax act declaring a total loss of ₹ 22,096,921/–. It is fact that the company has not filed ... assessee has received an amount of ₹ 7994/– as income in respect of units of non-resident. As the assessee is a non-filer notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 28/3/2018. In response to that the above referred return of income was filed. The assessee was given

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3960/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanish Rajnarain Goswami V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Metropolitan Chsl Mumbai - 400020 B-6 / B-8, Nargisdas Road Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Addpg7655D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

alter or amend aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 3. The first challenge is in respect of reopening of assessment by the issue of notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Since this goes to the root of the matter, we decide to adjudicate it first ... aforementioned information the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 28.03.2018 under section 148 of the Act. The said notice read as under: - “Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir/ Madam/ M/s, Whereas I have reasons to believe that your Income chargeable to Tax for the Assessment Year

Bengal Mill Stores P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1204/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. 205, Maganlal Chamber, Dcit- Circle 6(1)(2) Baburao Bobde Marg, Iron Mumbai-400 Vs. Market Mumbai-400 009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2473Q : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

that assessee has 04. purchased only the bills from five different parties amounting to ₹193,61,702/-, which are only accommodation bills. Therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 13th March, 2014. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 3rd September

Vrp Telematics (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

This fact of approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax as per provisions of Section 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under Section 148 has also been reiterated in the last paragraph of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act. 3. In this backdrop ... Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/ Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/ Commissioner of Income Tax since the notice under Section 148 has been issued after the expiry of a period four years from the end of Assessment Year 2015-16. The approval of Additional Commissioner

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 40/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.40/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Vs. Ito, Ward, Kudal. Bidyewadi, At Post Kalmath, Taluka Kankavli, Sindhudurg- 416602. Pan : Anipp5657R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Order Dated 08.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A) [‘Nfac’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity Of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Re-Assessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Based On Suspicious & Incorrect Information. Hence, As The Formation Of Belief Is Based On Incorrect, Suspicious & Vague Facts Same Is Unsus Tainable In Eye Of Law. 2. On The Facts & In Law, There Is Serious Jurisdictional Requirement In The Reasons Recorded By The Assessing Officer As He

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

failure of the Appellant to disclose the primary facts in regular assessment which was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act as Notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued beyond 4 years from the end of the A.Y. 2014-15. 3. On the facts ... examine the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer and also to verify “tangible material” on record before giving approval for issuing Notice under Section 148 of the Act vitiate entire reassessment proceeding as per well settled principles of law. 6. On the facts and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

laid down u/s 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The same is reproduced below: Time limit for notice. 149. (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 ... para 6 of said instruction reads as under:- “6. Operation of the new section 149 of the Act to identify cases where fresh notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued: 6.1 With respect of operation of new section 149 of the Act, the following may be seen

M/S Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appllate Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 4066/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

income. Financial transactions are in the nature of payment to Contractors and Alcoholic Liquor. Therefore, to verify the accountability of such transactions notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was issued and served upon the assessee which went un-responded. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued

Jignesh Chimanlal Jobanputra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4008/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 148Section 69

information received that the assessee had made bogus purchases from various parties totalling to Rs.15,51,506, reopened the assessment by issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act (the Act). The assessee in response requested the AO to treat the original return as the return filed ... response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has made investments in immovable property for an amount of Rs.52,23,570 and called on the assessee to produce the details including the source for purchase

Dskn Jewellers, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1051/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmadskn Jewellers Vs. Ito C/O. Mr. Samar Kapoor, Adv. Ward – 46(3) Chamber No.E-523, Karkardooma New Delhi Court, Delhi-32 Pan No. Aahfd 2162 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

belief that a sum of Rs.13,66,90,335/-, which was chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for AY 2011-12. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31.03.2018 through speed post after recording reasons and after seeking and being accorded approval

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 694/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

finances. Accordingly, in order to examine the source of cash deposits and other credit entries, the Assessing Officer reopened the case by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. The Assessing Officer issued various show-cause notices, however, the same were not complied with by the assessee ... appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, however, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the considered view that in the instant case, firstly, the assessee

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Suchit Arvindbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1683/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.16,97,000/- in savings Bank Account. The assessee did not file return of income. The assessment was reopened after recording reasons and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 25.03.2014. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee