“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

Ashish Gehlot, Indore vs. The ITO-4(2), Indore

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

ITA 548/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Ashish Gehlot Ito-4(2) 177, Radio Colony Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Amopg1266A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148

erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when notice under section 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was not actually served to the appellant. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Shamanna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1120/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

show cause notice issued, Order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed treating it as a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. Since there was no response to the several notices

Dhadda Gem N Jewels, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 662/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 148

Rajendra Jain Rajendra Jain’ group, the assessment was reopened by way of ssment was reopened by way of issuing notice under issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). section 148

Sh. Vibhav Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 355/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10(36)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Officer’s jurisdiction to undertake proceedings has to be tested/examined only on the basis of reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cannot be improved upon and/or supplemented much less substituted by affidavit and/or oral

Satyam Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile Company Represented by Ex-Director Ms. Seema Mangla), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(4), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 210/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasatyam Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 22 (4), (Erstwhile Company Represented By New Delhi. Ex-Director, Ms. Seema Mangla), B-144, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aakcs4230M)

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

ceased to exist and its name had been struck-off by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 25.06.2014 (i.e. much before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act). 2 1.2 That the assessing officer ("AO") erred on facts and in law in not dropping the reassessment proceedings initiated ... case of erstwhile company even when the jurisdictional notice under section 148 of the Act was served on a non-existent entity. Without Prejudice 2. That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the very initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act is illegal

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

facts of the present case; • reopening was resorted to beyond four years, the impugned assessment year being Asst.Year 2012-13 and notice under section 148 was issued at fag end of the sixth year i.e. 30.3.2018; • that initially assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Subhlaxmi Chem Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 992/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 992/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Subhlaxmi Chem Private Limited,...........Appellant R. No. C452, 71, B.R.B,B. Road, Bagri Market, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aahcs1598R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-12(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri B.C. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 23.03.2018 after noticing that the assessee has received Rs.45,00,000/- from M/s. Ajanta Vanijya Pvt. Limited by way of accommodation entry. Accordingly statutory notices were

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

have direct bearing on the issue on hand which read as under: 150. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect ... subsection (1) of section 150 of the Act overrides the time limit provided under subsection 149 of the Act for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, for making assessment or assessment in consequence to any finding given by the appellate authority under

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashre, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1122/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

passed. Takrar Ranganatha Rao, Bangalore Page 3 of 8 11. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice under section 148 is issued on the premise/basis that a search has been conducted in the case of the appellant, or in the case ... during the financial year 2017-18 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. Pursuant to the search action the Assessee was issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 23/03/2022 on the claim that prior approval under section 151 of the Act has been obtained from the specified authority

Arjun Reddy Marri, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 653/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, DR

Section 148

that the assessee along with his brother transferred immoveable property on 02/09/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 1.35 crores, learned Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and also called for the information about the cost of improvement incurred between

Bhagirath Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 742/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 54Section 54BSection 54DSection 54ESection 54FSection 54G

within the due date of filling of the return of income for the concerned financial year 2012-13 in accordance of section 54B. Notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and consequently assessment under section 147/144 (Ex-parte) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed

Ajmer Industries LLP, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

since the returns for the said two assessment years were filed beyond the period prescribed for making assessment, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and at the request of the petitioners treated the returns which were earlier filed as returns filed in response ... notice under section 148. It is urged on behalf of the Revenue that disclosure of income voluntarily and in good faith, as envisaged under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1), could be made only by filing a valid return and, if disclosure was not made

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

since the returns for the said two assessment years were filed beyond the period prescribed for making assessment, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and at the request of the petitioners treated the returns which were earlier filed as returns filed in response ... notice under section 148. It is urged on behalf of the Revenue that disclosure of income voluntarily and in good faith, as envisaged under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1), could be Prem Prakash Agarwal vs. DCIT made only by filing a valid return and, if disclosure

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

since the returns for the said two assessment years were filed beyond the period prescribed for making assessment, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and at the request of the petitioners treated the returns which were earlier filed as returns filed in response ... notice under section 148. It is urged on behalf of the Revenue that disclosure of income voluntarily and in good faith, as envisaged under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1), could be Prem Prakash Agarwal vs. DCIT made only by filing a valid return and, if disclosure