“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

Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vikas Manohar Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 940/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkari, DR

Section 148Section 69C

Mumbai (the learned CIT (A)) from sales tax department that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries. Accordingly, the reasons were recorded and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 18th March, 2013. According to the information assessee has obtained accommodation entry from three different entities whose ... amount of accommodation entry is ₹27,25,493/-. The bill providers also in the statement have admitted so. 06. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, on 8th April, 2013, assessee reiterated the original return filed 18th on September, 2009. During the course of assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vikas Manohar Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 939/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkari, DR

Section 148Section 69C

Igi Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 5 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7955/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2013-14 M/S. Igi Investments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit – 5(2)(1), 702, 7Th Floor, R. No.571, 5Th Floor, The Capital Bkc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra East, Mk Road, Mumbai- 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aacci1484R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R

Section 148Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 32

income declaring loss of Rs.1,21,04,553/- was filed on 11.09.2013. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice under section 148 of the Act on 05.03.2015 on the reasoning that during scrutiny proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 it was noticed that assessee was having ... sections 32 & 24(a) of the Act during the year under consideration. In 2 M/s. IGI Investments Pvt. Ltd. response to the notice under section 148 the assessee furnished return of income declaring loss of Rs.6,390/- on 27.06.2015 as against loss of Rs.1,21,04,553/- declared in return

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR

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

assessment believe that income escaped assessment and and reopened the assessment by way of issue of notice assessment by way of issue of notice under section 148 under section 148 of the Act on 19/03/2015. The information The information received by the Ld. Assessing Officer received by the Ld. Assessing

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

extent of ₹16,48,30,000/- being bogus purchases and ₹1,18,00,000/- being unexplained expenditure has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29th March, 2016. Assessee submitted that on 26th April, 2016 that original return filed may be treated as return

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Ravi R. Cunha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD, 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Section 148Section 68

return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.8,00,190/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, on noticing that the assessee has sold shares of M/s. Prerna Infra build Ltd. and earned long term capital

Shantilal Surji Gala, Bhandup West vs. Income Tax Officer – 29(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shantilal Surji Gala, Income Tax Officer – 29(3)(4), 603/C, Maven Mahavir C-10, Pratyaksh Bhavan, Universe, Room No.308, Vs. Lbs Road, Bkc, Bandra East, Bhandup West, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Ajrpg9242Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Chintan Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

open offer during the previous year, however, the assessee had not offered any capital gain/business profit on the same tax. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee has filed the return of income on 30.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,18,780/-. The assessment under ... contended that AO has not made any addition pertaining to the issues on the basis of which assessment was reopened by issuing of notice under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, he has contended that other addition made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

response to that assessee filed return of income on 18th September, 2012 at a loss of ₹1,82,82,029/- . 05. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 27th March, 2014 for reasons recoded by the ld AO shows that :- i. There was a tax evasion ... personal wealth. j. Significant benami properties acquired in Gujarat 06. Therefore, ld AO noted that as assessee has not filed return of income, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Ld AO issued several notices. However, nobody turned up and therefore, final show cause notice was issued

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1064/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

M/S Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in our considered opinion the order of the Ld

ITA 2171/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Riteshkumar Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

short ‘the Act’). 4. Subsequently, case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, pursuant to information received from the office of the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai. Investigation Office conveyed the name of black listed (by Maharashtra

Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, in our considered opinion the order of the Ld

ITA 7139/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Riteshkumar Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Income Tax Officer-3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patodia Systex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5641/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Profit & Loss Account and therefore, income amounting to INR 29,87,028/- had escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued to the Assessee on 20.03.2015 ITA. No. 5641/Mum/2019 & CO No.21/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 after recording reasons for reopening assessment. the relevant extract of which read as under

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer has not followed proper procedure before and after issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act and consequently, subsequent proceedings on an invalid procedure adopted by the learned assessing officer becomes void and does not have ... Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer has not followed proper procedure before and after issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act and consequently, subsequent proceedings on an invalid procedure adopted by the learned assessing officer becomes void and does not have

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

normal computation and at a book profit of Rs.129,91,06,538/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 21st March, 2017. The assessee requested for accepting the original return filed in response to that notice . The reasons were

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7742/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35