← 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

A.C.I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

observed that the assessee had filed his ROI for AY 2003-04 on 31-03- 2004 and per provisions of section 149, the notice under section 148 for the AY 2003-04 could be issued only up to six years i.e. by 31-03-2010. Therefore, assessment ... proceedings are void and bad in law. 11. The Section 150 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the limitation prescribed under section 149, notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or re- computation in consequence

Wandel Global Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 5874/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 248

under section 148 of the Act. The assessee-company thereafter was informed through email repeatedly to file the return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, however the Company remained non-responsive on all the occasions. Finally, the ld. AO deemed it fit to dispose ... present case, as the name of assessee company was already struck off w.e.f. 18.08.2017, whereas the re-assessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 was issued much afterwards on 27.03.2019. Under such circumstances case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5850/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Tradecom Private Limited Ito,Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai Shop No. 1, Shiv Ganga Chs Ltd., Vs Room No. 147B, Aayakar Bhavan, Ram Kuwar Thakur Road, M.K. Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400068. [Pan No. Aaccd8131A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessee submits that case of assessee for A.Y. 2016-17 2 Diamond Tradecom Private Limited was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 30.06.2021. After the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal (SC) in other appeal no. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022, the assessing ... officer passed order under section 148(d) dated 30.07.2022. Subsequent to passing order under section 148, a fresh notice under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 was issued. The notice under section 148 was issued with prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-4, Mumbai dated 29.07.2022. The PCIT

Niripraj Singh Sohal, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

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

ITA 6276/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the return of income in response to notice under section 148 is filed it replaces the original return and the latter one is treated as the return filed under section 139 of the Act. That ... given any finding in the assessment order that Appellant has concealed any income and accepted the retuned of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. That on the facts and circumstances if the case and in law, the impugned order passed

Babu Lal Patwari, Uttarakhand vs. DCIT Circle-2(1)(), Uttarakhand

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

ITA 60/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the instant case is covered on the jurisdictional aspect i.e., no notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) can be issued for 2 AY 2016-17 without prior approval of the specified authority ... authority mentioned under Section 151 of the Act. He submitted that under Section 151 of the Act, it has been provided that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued unless the AO has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. The specified

Jiteshkumar Madhavbhai Jagani, Surat vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/SRT/2026[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250

said order is reproduced as under: Asst. Year: 2015-16 - 2– 5.1 The learned Counsel further pointed out that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the new law, the outer

Jayveersingh Jashubhai Chudasama L/H Divyaben Jayveersingh Chudasama, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 5, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250

relied on the decisions in the case of Urmilaben Aniruddhasinhji Jadeja (supra) wherein it was held that reopening notice under section 148 issued against a dead person would be a nullity and, proceedings pursuant to a reopening notice issued to a dead person could not be continued against legal representative

Priti Bhansali, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is deleted

ITA 1023/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblepriti Bhansali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. D 1, Rajashree Nagar, Ward-1, Umalla, Bharuch. Bharuch-39310. [Pan : Agspb2559 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

request of her bank. It was only thereafter that she became aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Although statutory notices, including notice under section 148, were issued, the same were not communicated to the assessee. Consequently, an ex-parte assessment order was passed. The appeal against the said

Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Nuzvid vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 232/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

reads thus:- 35. Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either ... Therefore, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of both FAO or the JAO with respect to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Scheme dated 29th March 2022 in paragraph 3 clearly provides that the issuance of notice "shall be through automated allocation" which means

The Government Iti Basmathnagar Imc Society, Hingoli vs. Exemption Ward, Nanded

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2969/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2969 & 2972/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Government Iti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Basmathnagar Imc Society, Exemption Ward, Opp To Navoday Vidyalay, Range 179, Nanded Basmat Parbhani Road, Basmathnagar, Dist. Hingoli 431512 Maharashtra Pan : Aabtg2544A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reassessment proceedings and the order are void and bad in law since the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is not empowered to issue notice under Section 148 under the newly introduced regime of faceless assessment and it should have been issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre/FAO 6. The Id. AO erred

Prakash Reddy Vatti, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

following grounds in the instant appeal: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating proceedings under Section 148A(b) and issuing notice under Section 148 dated 27.04.2022 without fulfilling the mandatory conditions prescribed under Sections 147, 148, 148A, and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; the reassessment ... void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. That the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period of six years prescribed under the erstwhile Section 149(1)(b), and the extended ten-year period introduced by Finance Act, 2021 cannot be applied retrospectively

Jayasankar Natarajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3211/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3211/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raman Goyal, IRS (Retd.) &For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act. The Ld.AR vehemently argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai is lacking jurisdiction in view of Notification issued ... clear that the respondents have erred in not following the mandatory faceless procedure as prescribed in the scheme dated 29.03.2022. Since notices under Section 148 of the Act were not issued in a faceless manner, the entire further proceeding founded upon it and assessment orders stand vitiated. Thus, the impugned

Ganesh Chand Suresh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

ITA 3143/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3143/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ganesh Chand Suresh Kumar, A-2, 1St Floor, Ashok Ganapathim, New No.49, 4Th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Pan: Brtps 0536A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 आदेश/ Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 18.09.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called `The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. :-2 -:

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act. The Ld.AR vehemently argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Chennai is lacking jurisdiction in view of Notification issued by the CBDT ... clear that the respondents have erred in not following the mandatory faceless procedure as prescribed in the scheme dated 29.03.2022. Since notices under Section 148 of the Act were not issued in a faceless manner, the entire further proceeding founded upon it and assessment orders stand vitiated. Thus, the impugned

Subbiah Murugavel, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2689/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 which is dated 19.04.2022 is beyond the period of 3 years and therefore as per the provisions of Section ... further submitted that in the present case the AO has obtained approval from Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) while issuing notice under section 148 and therefore the notice is invalid. The ld AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai vs. Fa Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3897/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vijay Mehta
Section 69A

escaped assessment and accordingly income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Although the assessee issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Although the assessee issued notice under section 148

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai vs. Fa Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 3896/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek A. Perampurna, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

basis of such information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Although the assessee initially failed to comply with the said notice, it thereafter filed a return in response, albeit after some

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai vs. F A Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 3895/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

basis of such information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Although the assessee initially failed to comply with the said notice, it thereafter filed a return in response, albeit after some

Ruby Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

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

ITA 4772/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Ms. Ruby Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of R-543, New Rajendra Nagar, Income Tax, New Delhi: 1100 60 Central Circle 8, Pan No. Anaps3827J New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahir Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

believe were recorded and the approval of the same was obtained. The proceeding under Sections 148/147 of Act in this case and further notice under Section 148 has been issued to the assessee on 01.01.2021. Consequently, the return of Income was e-field against notice under Section 148

Inuus Infrastructure(P) Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4617/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 7|Page ITA No.4617/Del/2025 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely ... Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground

Guman Singh Kushwah, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 544/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 206ASection 50C

aspects were considered to be income escaping assessment in the hands of the assessee and accordingly, the assessment was reopened vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30-3-2021. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file