← 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

Kewal Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Joa DCIT/ACIT/JCIT(OSD)(Central Circle) 1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1275/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No. 1269 To 1272/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Το 2023-24 Chandigarh Royale City Promoters बनाम JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT (OSD) Central Private Limited, Circle-1, Chandigarh-160017 SCO-44, Sector-20C, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAECC3999H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1273 Το 1275/Chd/ 2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-2

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 144BSection 148Section 151A

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure ... reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory

Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Jao DCIT/ACIT/JCIT (OSD) Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1270/CHANDI/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No. 1269 To 1272/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Το 2023-24 Chandigarh Royale City Promoters बनाम JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT (OSD) Central Private Limited, Circle-1, Chandigarh-160017 SCO-44, Sector-20C, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAECC3999H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1273 Το 1275/Chd/ 2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-2

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 144BSection 148Section 151A

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure ... reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory

M/S. Mithilesh Fabrics, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Tirupur, Triupur

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

ITA 3124/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3124/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Mithilesh Fabrics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 19, Elango Nagar, 3Rd Street, Ward 1(1), Backside Sanat Theatre, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Abbfm7917J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 35 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

been issued. The assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹.1,21,160/- in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and the Assessing Officer, by issuing notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, held that no explanation in respect

Sunil Suresh Rane, Dombivli vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

Appeal have erred in law and on facts in passing the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without complying with the various jurisdictional preconditions and statutory safeguards under Income Tax Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act in a standard format without striking off the inapplicable reasons or specifying the exact basis for reopening, thereby