“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

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

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 237/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

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

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

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 7382/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Section 133A

Shri Parasnath H Bharti, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7555/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 38(2)Section 69Section 69C

said issue raised on the ground that since return of income was not filed by the assessee within the time specified in the notice under section 148 of the Act the AO could not issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Furthermore learned CIT(A) has referred that

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 194J(1)Section 40

failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment' would make the issue of notice under section 148 without jurisdiction cannot be accepted. [Para 8] • However, in the facts of the present case, the reasons as recorded, when read ... replies and affidavits not envisaged in the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment. To put it simply, the validity of a notice under section 148 of the Act has to be tested on the basis of the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings. The reasons recorded cannot

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R

Section 10BSection 147Section 40

dated 03/08/2011 were dismissed. 2.7. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently submitted that the assessee merged into another company and the notice under section 148 was correctly issued and assessee appeared before the Ld.AO. He further stated that assessee is not at all aggrieved by mere mention ... name of the assessee prior to its merger. 2.8. With respect to this argument of the Ld.Sr.DR that notice under section 148 was issued in the name of merged company, the Ld.AR referred to paragraph No.1 of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Spice

Shri Pankaj Singh, Faridabad vs. Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer), Faridabad

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

ITA 2579/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. N. Shete, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 15

perusal of the the Sale Deed dated 18.09.2007 found that the entire sale consideration and Stamp Duty was paid in cash. Accordingly notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20.03.2013 requiring the assessee to file Income Tax Return within 30 days from the service

ACIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Manisha Manish Jaitha, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1236/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 148

total income at Rs.2,33,92,362/-only on the basis of a copy of Base-Note received from the Government sources. First notice under section 148 of l.T.Act, 1961 was issued on 18/3/2015 and 142(1) notice requisitioning details and documents on 27/3/2015(Friday) calling for details on 30/3/2015

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

ITA 7432/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(47)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

30th May, 2008 at ₹909,67,56,864/-. 4. Case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 14th December, 2010 based on Survey under section 133A of The Act conducted in case of Z Square Shopping Mall, Kanpur on 13th ... containing of factual documents containing 32 pages and other containing case law compilation of 96 pages. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that in notice under section 148 of the Act dated on 14th December 2010, wherein the reasons recorded shows that the reopening has been made for substituting fair market

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Date : 26.08.2015 Gautam Deb DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi” 2.2. In response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee submitted that the original return of income filed under section 139(1) maybe treated as return filed ... response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee raised objections to the reasons recorded under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which were 6 ITA.No.7303/Del./2017 M/s. Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. disposed of by the A.O. by passing a detailed order

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

time, the return was declared invalid and non-est vide order under section 139(9) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 22.02.2000. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 5 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, was issued ... appeared on 23.01.2002 and filed written reply stating that the original return filed on 28.01.2000 be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted from the computation sheet attached to the return

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts in the assessee form of a report is not a substitute for reasons that are required to be recorded before issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act : In para 19 of the said report the Hon’ble High Court held that "The Assessing Officer did not verify ... even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness of the information or his satisfaction that a case has been made out for Issuing- a notice under section 148 of 11 the Act Read in this light, what has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as his "reasons to believe'’ is nothing

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment so as to justify the issue of a notice under section 148’. viii. Kindly note that the provisions of S. 52(2) which permitted substitution of the value has been dropped long and were even

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 612/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR

Section 68

filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009 – 2010 declaring the total income of ₹ 26, 410/-on 28 September 2009. 4.2 Notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 13 March 2014 and which was duly served on the assessee. In the said notice the assessee ... filed any return of income. As per the case of the assessee the assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the act only on 22 January 2015. 6. In between the assessing officer had issued the notice under section

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5279/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR

Section 68

filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009 – 2010 declaring the total income of ₹ 26, 410/-on 28 September 2009. 4.2 Notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 13 March 2014 and which was duly served on the assessee. In the said notice the assessee ... with C.O. 50 Mum 2019 & ITA No. 612 Mum 2019 M/s Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd. return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the act only on 22 January 2015. 6. In between the assessing officer had issued the notice under section

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2851 & 2852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) The Board Of Control For बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Cricket In India Vs. Wankhede Stadium, „D‟ Road, Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0186A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. Ita. No.2851/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. Ita Nos. 2851 & 2852/M/2017 A.Ys.2005-06 & 2006-07 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)

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

corroborated by the facts set out in the assessment order as well. Quite clearly, therefore, there was no return, filed in response to notice under section 148, before the Assessing Officer at the point of time when notice under section 143(2) was issued. Such a notice thus

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

determining total income at Rs. 3,28,52,196. On 6th June 2014, however, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148. When the assessee requisitioned the reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 5th February 2016, has this

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Infraprojects Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 4944/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

date on which the Assessee informed the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 15 13. In DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del), this Court invalidated ... escaped liability, shall serve notice specifying particulars of such claim. In view of the above, after receipt of return in response to notice under Section 148, it shall be mandatory for the AO to serve a notice under sub-Section 2 of Section 143 assigning reason therein. In absence