← 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

U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi Delhi, Delhi

ITA 2103/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred ("AO") in issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act without satisfying the jurisdictional conditions of section 148 of the Act. 2.2. The Appellant prays that the notice under section 148

U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi Delhi, Delhi

ITA 2102/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred ("AO") in issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act without satisfying the jurisdictional conditions of section 148 of the Act. 2.2. The Appellant prays that the notice under section 148

ITO Ward--2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Himanshu Lalit Ranka, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1082/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

assessee appeared in the list of persons, who have obtained bogus purchase bills from entry providers. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued a notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment and called on the assessee to furnish the details of the following alleged bogus purchases:- Sr.No. Hawala Tin Hawala Name

Sh. Sachin Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 3, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sachin Sharma, Vs Ito, C/O-Umang Sahai Aggarwal, Adv., Ward-3, 505, Maitri Apartment, Opp. Metro Bhiwani. Pillar No.411, Sector-09, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Bnyps6223F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri U.S.Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 Order

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

response notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The assessee had also filed ITR in response to notice under section 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has no objection of any kind regarding validity of proceedings. When the assessee has cooperated during ... course of assessment proceedings, question of challenging of proceedings does not arise. Thus the said grounds of appeal is not tenable. 3. Notice under section 148 was issued after duly consideration of all the facts of the case by the Assessing Officer and addition of Rs.30,06,300/- was made

ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat vs. Maheshchand G. Patel (HUF), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 292C

Surat. Approval of reopening was granted by Additional C.I.T., Range-1(3), Surat on 20/03/2015 (wrongly recorded by A.O. as 20/03/2012). Notice under Section 148 dated 20/03/2015 was served upon the assessee. Thereafter, case was 2 ITO Vs Maheshchandra G. Patel (HUF) transferred from I.T.O., Ward ... having 50% of share in the property, thus the assessee has received Rs. 7.63 crores. The Assessing Officer recorded that before issuing notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer was issued notice to assessee on 06/02/2015 about the sale of land at Magdalla, Surat. In response to such notice

Nishit Shripal Bhandari, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2023[F.Y-2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhnishit Shripal Bhandari Vs. Income Tax Officer, 104, Parshva Kunj, Ward-19(2)(4) Babulnath X Road-2, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Babulnath, Near Jain Mumbai – 400 007 Temple, Mumbai – 400 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aenpb5326H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 68

under: “As per provision of section 151(1), sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is a pre-requisite for issuance of a reopening notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, therefore, impugned reopening notice issued with sanction of Additional Commissioner

Dr. Neha Seth, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwin Chhag, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

satisfied that the Assessee has failed to disclose true and complete particulars of his income for the year under consideration. 2.2 Consequently, the notice under section 148 was issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee filed its return of income on 08.04.2019 declaring total income

Ron Creations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Mehta & Uday Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

hawala operators as available on the official website of the Sales Tax Department. Consequently, the case of the Assessee was re-opened and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 18.03.2014 was issued and served upon the Assessee. Thereafter statutory notices were also issued to the Assessee. The Assessee ... made under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the Financial Year in which notice under section 148 of the Act was served. In the instant case, admittedly the time limit for passing of order/due date for completion and dispatching

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K. Poddar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

above is reproduced as under:-…… “We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file return

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur vs. Meserss Chhattisgarh Stateelectricity Board, Raipur

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee has 11 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board filed a return in pursuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, the income in the return of income filed by the assessee pursuant to the said notice has to be accepted as final

Shri Champakbhai D. Patel, Bardoli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted bank statement, confirmation of parties

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “16. Respondent's stand that the Assessing Officer at New Delhi had issued a notice under section 148 of the said Act on petitioner on 22nd March 2013 before the limitation period expired and, therefore, the impugned notice issued ... continuation of the proceedings by Income-tax Officer - 1(I), Lucknow on the ground that the said proceedings are illegal as the notice under section 148 of the said Act issued itself was devoid of proper jurisdiction and ab initio void. The Income-tax Officer - 1(I), Lucknow, however, without

M/S. Minestone, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Minestone Acit-18(2) Room No. 32, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 98, Mumbai -400 020 Sagar Bhavan, Building No.2, Vs. Kantilal M Sharma Marg, Lohar Chawl, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250

Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to belhieve under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has power to assess or reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment, and also any other ... also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (1) such income ; and also (1) any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

being involved in bringing unaccounted money in books of accounts in the form of share application money in the year under consideration. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27/3/2018 was issued after approval from competent authority. The assessee in reply file return of income on 12/11/2018 declaring ... truly all material facts necessary for the reassessment, for that assessment year. Section 149 of the Act deals with time limit for notice under section 148 of the Act. As per clause (a) of sub-section (1), no notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued

Hari Consolidate Priate Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 850/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Malik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

assessee had paid equivalent cash and commission thereon from its undisclosed income earned during the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13. Notice under section 148 of the Act was therefore issued on 30.03.2019. The assessee replied that the return filed by the assessee on 13.08.2012 may be treated ... return filed in response to notice under section 148. During re-assessment proceedings, notice(s) issued remained uncomplied with. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) passed ex parte assessment order on 5.12.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 50,10,420/- including therein addition

Uma Mandal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 282/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening the case of the assessee without assuming proper jurisdiction under the act. It is hereby thus prayed for quashing the notice under Section 148 as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred

M/S. Soham Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer (AO) which was passed without disposing of the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded for issuance of Notice under section 148 of the Act by passing a separate speaking order. Hence the order is bad in law.” 6. Since the above ground goes ... rival submissions, perused the material on record and examined the position in law. 10.1. In the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), notice under Section 148 of the Act read with Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the assessing officer calling upon the assessee in that

DCIT, Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 70/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Mohan, JCIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Chand Baid, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 194HSection 194J

Assessing Officer served upon the assessee to furnish copy of its income-tax return or to furnish reason for not filing the return, notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.12.2016. In response to notice under Section 148, again assessee did not furnish any return. Learned Assessing Officer issued statutory ... which were served on the assessee. Copy of 3 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 was also supplied to the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer also noted the facts about accounts of the assessee not audited and hence details

Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan Pcit Opp. Govt. Distt. Hospital, Raipur - 1 Bilaspur Road Ambikapur, Surguju Chhattisgarh – 497 001

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Rs.13,20,000/- and payment to contractor of Rs.8,61,564/- during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 and accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee. Issues raised under the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income

ACIT (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Surajpur

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 70/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2021 & Cross Objection No.20/Rpr/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.70/Rpr/2021) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Acit (Central) M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Bilaspur Ward No.13, Nehru Park, Surajpur (C.G.) [Pan: Aadcb 4662 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. R. Rao, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Under such facts and circumstances with necessary approval from Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal, Learned AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 17.03.2017 advising to assessee to file the return in the prescribed form for the aforesaid assessment year. In response ... that the return filed originally under Section 139 vide Ack. No.171138351141010 dated 14.10.2010 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. It is also stated that the amount of Rs.8,98,300/- on account of SD/EMD was erroneously mentioned