“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

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

sixth assessment year.We find it relevant to extract section 149(1) of the Act herein 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 ... issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana Oshiwara (E) Units Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 237/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 148

circumstances of 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, on the case and in law, on receipt of notice under section 148 the assessee did not receipt of notice under section 148 the assessee did not receipt of notice under section 148 the assessee ... income tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2009 1961 for assessment year 2009-10 it transpired that the 10 it transpired that the notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

17/09/2010 declaring a total income of Rs.36,70,647/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued reopening the assessment for the reason that the Assessing Officer has received information from DGIT(Inv) about having received vital information from

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R

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

assessee had received accommodation entries of Rs.48,49,500/- from M/s Astro Informatics by way of bogus purchases. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2019, the assessee filed his return on 22.04.2019. The assessee also filed his objections on the reasons recorded ... issuing of notice under section 148 of the Act on 20.08.2019 which was duly disposed off by passing a speaking order dated 22.10.2019 by the Assessing Officer. As regards transactions with M/s Astro Informatics, the assessee submitted purchases of Rs.32,40,000/- made and submitted the ledger account of purchase

Sumer Chand Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9702/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2017 after approval from Pr. CIT, Delhi-17, New Delhi on receipt of following information by the Ld. Assessing Officer ... AFRPJ9962J) 5. 2010-11 Sale Parmeshwar Exports 45,97,941 KARNAWAT (PAN: AADCK1927A) Total 3,42,09,724 4. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the return filed on 28.09.2010 may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section

Mukesh Agarwal, Surat vs. CIT Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

property. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer after recording the reasons for reopening that income of assessee escaped assessment, the case of assessee was reopened. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2018. The assessee filed his letter dated 14.10.2018 intimated the Assessing Officer that he has filed return ... income on 07.09.2018 in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that during assessment, the assessing officer neither provided the copy of alleged satakat found during the survey action carried out in business premises of Vasudev Goplani, Advocate nor called

Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai vs. JCIT-19(2), Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

Assessing Officer had time till the lapse of 16 years from the end of the Assessment Year 2006-07 to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. Explanation to Section 149 of the Act clarified that the provisions of Section

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National-Eassessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 358/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Assessment Centre. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the notice under section 148 of the Act based on incorrect information and without application of mind and without providing copies of the information received and also without ... circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that the Ld. Assessment Centre erred in issuing a Notice under section 148 of the Act on an issue which was scrutinized during the original assessment. Therefore, no reassessment can be made based on a change

Hemu Real Estate Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-10(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 1672/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1671 & 1672/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Hemu Real Estate Vs. Ito 10(1)(3) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan B-117, Kamla Niwas, Mumbai - 400020 Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabch1281Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Margav ShuklaFor Respondent: Sanjeev Ranjan

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

liable to be quashed. 2.8 On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act without having valid approval required under section 151 of the Act and such assessment order passed pursuant to such approval is erroneous

Hemu Estate Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -10(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Margav ShuklaFor Respondent: Sanjeev Ranjan

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Such reasons have to be communicated to the Assessee. However, merely because the Assessee participates in the proceedings pursuant to such notice under Section 148 of the Act, it does not obviate the mandatory requirement of the AO having to issue to the Assessee a notice under Section ... because there was no explanation for the failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act before 30 September 2013, the last date by which the notice ought to have been issued. 14. The law on this point

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Parametric Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 84/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

under:- “4. Mr. Kamat submitted that if this necessary satisfaction/approval was granted only on 26-6- 2019, how did Respondent No. 1 issue notice under section 148 on 25-6-2019, i.e., a day prior thereto. 5. Mr. Suresh Kumar requested for some more time to file reply. Since ... states that the reason of escapement of income was sent for approval to learned Additional CIT on 14-6-2019 much before the notice under section 148 was issued. 7. In our view, therefore, the Petitioner's submission that the notice dated 25-6-2019 issued under section 148

Raju Bhikhabhai Bhagat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.- 2(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 190/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 254(1)

bank, term deposit and investment in immovable property has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing Officer after recording reasons issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 26/03/2018 to file return of income within 30 days. The Assessing Officer ... recorded that the assessee failed to file return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued various notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and recorded that despite repeated notices, the assessee neither attended nor furnished necessary details, therefore, the Assessing

ITO, Ward-3(2)(10), Surat vs. Sagarbhai Bijalbhai Rabari, Surat

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

ITA 183/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.97/Srt/2017 (Ay 2013-14) & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(5), Surat, Room No.115, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 Shri Sagarbhai Bijaibhai Rabari, 33-34, Ambika Income Tax Officer, Ward- Nagar, Luhar Falia, Nana Vs 3[2][10], Surat, Room No.115, Varachha, Surat-395006 1St Floor, Anavil Business Pan No. Adapr 4150 K Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 254(1)

regarding the unsecured loan received by assessee. At the time of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.07.2018, the issue was subject-matter of appeal, during the pendency of appeal, issuance of notice u/s 148 ... order on the validity of reopening by taking view that at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 dated 31.07.2018, the issue of reopening was subject-matter of appeal. Issuance of notice under section 148 is to be considered

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat vs. Shri Sagarbhai Bijalbhai Rabari, Surat

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

ITA 97/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 254(1)

Narayan Devarajan Iyengar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 106/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri Dilip K. Shah

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

rent and Rs.12,500 as shifting allowance) which has not been offered for taxation and thus has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 31/03/2021. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income

ITO Ward-4(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashik Wollen Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

ITA 3021/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

that section 41(1) of the Act will not be applicable. In fact the Income-tax Officer, in the first instance had issued notice under section 148 for reassessment of the assessment year 1994-95, but when faced with the order of the BIFR exempting operation of section