“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

Sri A.M. Abdul Basheer Rahman, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3008/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji &For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)

further appeal before us. 5. We find that the provisions of Sec.150(1) provide that 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

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

ITA 968/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

took the aid of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act which reads as under:- “Time Limit for notice 149 [(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, (a) if four year have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless ... said provision was substituted by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f, 1-4-1989; it read thereafter as follows: "149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year(a) in a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

ITA 2629/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. K.Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that ... escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income, and if he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. [Para 16] Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

ITA 2628/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. K.Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

reasonable presumed that the issue of treatment of ICD availed by the assessee has been scrutinised in the assessment u/s.143(3). Subsequently a notice under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment was issued for the reason that the ICD taken by the assessee from VIMPL

DCIT, Corporate Cirlce - 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 704/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234C

assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act was completed on 09.12.2011. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment by observing that on perusal of the records, the assessee company has not paid the self assessment tax payable ... income for the assessment year 2008- 09. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 12.03.2013 has been issued to the assessee. Further, the reasons for reopening has also been provided to the assessee vide letter dated

Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 618/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17, Seetharam Nagar, Ward 1, Cuddalore 607 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Aewpr9630P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, Dated 20.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 37 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2018 for reopening of assessment and the reasons recorded and communicated by the 3 I.T.A. No.618/Chny/20 Assessing Officer vide his letter ... observed that though the assessment was reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, when the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, the return of income for the year had not been subject to scrutiny under section

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

carrying on the business acquired by way of slump sale and has claimed depreciation on the brought forward Block. The Assessing Officer vide notice under section 148 has reopened the assessment year 2008-2009 of the assessee and has disallowed the depreciation on Goodwill in the said year vide order

Sadanand Kashinath Jethe, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward-32(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1319/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148

profit in the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 29/03/2014. During the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to explain why income from the project, ‘Jethe Tower’ should

Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156

furnished.] 3 ………………. 4 ……………….. " (emphasis supplied). 9. It is an undisputed position before us that on 25.01.2000 when the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 1999-2000, even before the time to issue notice under Section ... clear that in view of the provisions of Section 143(1)(i) of the Act is in force at the relevant time, no notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued, till the period to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has expired. 12. Reliance

Bhavnagri Halai Memon Jamat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1676/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito(Exemption)1(1) 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Bhavnagari Halai Memon Jamat Mtnl, Te Building, Peddar C/O Umer Hall Trust, Road, Dr. Gopalrao 11/13 Masjid Cross Lane, Vs. Mumbai- 400 003 Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai- 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatb7848R Assessee By : Shri. Mudassir H. Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Mudassir H. Deshmukh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234b

TR/6733 dated 17.06.1976. 03. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee based onnon-filers monitoring system cycling (NMS Cycle). The notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2017. This culminated in to the assessment order 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer

Satish R Goradia HUF, Mumbai-400058 vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), Mumbai-400051

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

ITA 1165/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh HemaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee is the Satish Garodia HUF ITAs No.1165/Mum./2022 beneficiary of bogus purchase bills. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and duly served on the assessee. As per the Assessing Officer (‘AO’), the assessee neither attended nor filed

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

respective accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a detailed scrutiny of the material submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under Section 148 issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

ITO 24(2), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2339/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

Based on the information received from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 13/09/2016, after recording the reasons. In reply, the assessee filed a letter requesting that the return of income

Income Tax Officer 24(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2338/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD. 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2053/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 194A

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

income at ₹.15,50,25,060/-. 2.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.02.2017 on the ground that there is an escapement of income. On the request of the assessee, reasons ... came to a conclusion that the total capital gain of the assessee is ₹.1,95,78,283/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, he wanted to treat the entire income as business income and not as capital gain as computed by the Assessing