← 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

ITO Ward 2 (3), Thane vs. Shri. Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road

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

ITA 7432/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

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

such information, the assessee has received accommodation entry of ₹26,25,58,657/- in case of four persons. Therefore, after recoding reasons, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.10.2016. Assessee raised an objection that he has received notice dated 07.10.2016 issued under section 148 ... assessment as well as against addition confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 012. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.10.2016; however, it was received by the assessee only on 27.07.2017. He submitted the dispatch record placed

Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road vs. ITO Ward 2 (5), Thane

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

ITA 6605/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

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

such information, the assessee has received accommodation entry of ₹26,25,58,657/- in case of four persons. Therefore, after recoding reasons, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.10.2016. Assessee raised an objection that he has received notice dated 07.10.2016 issued under section 148 ... assessment as well as against addition confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 012. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.10.2016; however, it was received by the assessee only on 27.07.2017. He submitted the dispatch record placed

Printrade Issues India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 7 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1770/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Printrade Issues India Private The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 7(3)(2) Gala No.17, Pragati Indus Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, 316, Nm Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400 004 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccp1550F Appellant By : Shri Mohan Makjija, Ar Respondent By : Shri V Tripathi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. This Appeal Is Field By Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai Dated 17Th March, 2020, Wherein The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of ₹14,15,549/- Was Upheld. This Is Only The Grievance In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Makjija, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Tripathi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

determining the total income of the assessee at ₹6,38,62,052/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 28th February, 2014. The reason for reopening was that assessee has obtained bogus bill of ₹14,15,549/- from

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

Issued:- 9 In the specific facts of the present case, the issue to be deliberated is whether and assessing officer can issue notice under section 148 on the basis of any information which comes to his notice from sources different from search and seizure and he has reasons to believe

Pritiben Vinodchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -23(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 752/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

that the investigation wing have also made available a brief report in respect of investigation carried out in the said company. Subsequently the notice under section 148 of the I.T.Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not filed the submission. Thereafter the Assessing ... should be treated as invalid and void ab initio. Further learned counsel submitted upon recording of the reasons and before issue of notice under section 148 of the Act Assessing Officer had obtained the approval from the higher authorities under section 151 of the Act. He claimed that the same

Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1573/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 271F

Accordingly, after recording the reason and seeking prior approval of the Pr.C IT-27, Mumbai under section 151(1), the assessing officer issued notice under section 148. The assessee submitted that assessee had declared in IDS-26 and filed copy of working of taxes in respect of IDS-2016 (assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt. Villoo Zareer Morawala Patel, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1359/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Villoo Zareer Morawala Patel, The Deputy C/O. M/S. Avesthagen Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Regus Ub City Circle – 1(1)(1), Concorde, 15Th Floor, Bangalore. Vs. Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Abvpp2706J Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 07/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals), In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue, Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition To The Extent Of Rs. 3,42,60,261/- Made By The Assessing Officer

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 148

that assessee received salary income of ₹ 3,72,00,008/-, which was not declared in the return of income dated to 30/09/2013. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued to assessee and the reasons recorded was also provided. The Ld.AO called upon assessee vide order sheet noting dated 11/03/2016 seeking

Mr Jasjeet Singh M Chaddah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7956/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23(1)(a)

income declared by the appellant was accepted as it is by the AO. Subsequently the case was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 as the AO had reasons- to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the A.Y.2006-07 has escaped assessment' within the meaning

Jayesh Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4212/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in reopening the assessment of the Appellant by issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act without recording valid and proper reasons to show that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Hence, the notice under section 148

Mrs. Deepal N Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5295/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. S. VenkatramanFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi and Sh. T. Shankar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

that a perusal of the reasons recorded for re-opening would show that the AO has applied his mind and has thereafter issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The ld. DR submitted that the decision rendered in the case of PCIT V/s. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra ... basis of information received from Investigation Wing. The AO has neither applied his mind nor carried out any independent enquiry before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, re-opening on the basis of borrowed information is unsustainable. A perusal of reasons for re- opening at page

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

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

ITA 6477/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ankur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are not a game of hide and seek. The inquiry in the wake of a notice under Section 148 is not an empty formality. It must be effective and with a sense of purpose. There is an elaborate procedure set out which requires ... requisite circumspection. Since the provision is generally invoked, as has been done in the case at hand, by recourse to the procedure of notice under Section 148 upon satisfaction under Section 147 that the income (purportedly represented by the unexplained sums found credited in the books of accounts), within

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

surrender tas made on behalf of the assessee-company. We also find that even in the return filed in response to a notice under section 148, the assesse-company did not include the said amount of bogus purchases. The assessee-company has not placed any material as to show that

Shri Kenche Kumar, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1682/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 Shri. Kenche Kumar, Vs. Acit, 21St Ward, Bellary Road Circle, Central Circle – 2(1), Hospet– 583 201. Bengaluru. Pan : Avspk 7166L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

partnership firms in which the assessee was a partner, was filed on 22.01.2017 and that too in response to a notice under section 148 of the Act, the fact that the assessee has disclosed the source of accretions of the capital account in these returns has not been doubted

Indian Clothing League(P) Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 505/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Indian Clothing League (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-26(2), Advocate, B-1A/22H, New Delhi. Sector-51, Noida. Pan: Aaccv3439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the appellant subsequent to filing of return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and prior to framing an order of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act, order of assessment so framed

Asstt. CIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. National Standard India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 695/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

ITAT has held that in the facts of the present case, “it is established on record, prior to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, no reasons were recorded for re-opening of assessment. That being the case, the issuance of notice under section 148

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 966/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)(c)

stood at the material point of time, i.e. 27th March 2015, was as follows: 5. Section 149- Time limit for notice. (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

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indira D Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 969/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 1999-2000 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Smt. Indira D. Thakkar, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 006 Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabpt 3389 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Thakkar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

years from the end of the assessment years. The relevant provision is reproduced as under : “149. Time limit for notice. (I) 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

Bhim Singh, Palwal vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8450/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Faridabad has erred at law while confirming validity of assessment even without service of the notice under section 148 which is basic requirement for completion of assessment under section 147. The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored duly sworn affidavit by the Appellant

M/S. Sharda Lab P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1680/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITA.NO. 1680/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Sharda Lab Pvt. Ltd., at by the A.O. which is the basic pre-requisite for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Ld AR for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that reopening of the assessment is illegal and bad in law and liable

Vama Pvt Ltd. [Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 568/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2007-08
Section 133A

suit number 2435 of 2005) before the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai which is still pending. But when the AO has issued notice under section 148 on 28/3/2013 the appellant has not filed any return of income except a letter dated 30/4/2013 stating that it could not file