“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

Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice Corporation, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1700/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69A

Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 27/07/2022 was passed by the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/07/2022 after obtaining the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad, dated 27/07/2022, vide reference No. F.No.Pr.CIT-1/Hyd/147/2022-23 ... assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act, i.e., issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act without obtaining prior approval of the prescribed authority, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. 10. Shri S. Rama

Meenakshisundaram Saravanan, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirunelveli

ITA 3034/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

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 ... notices under Section 148 of the Act and all consequential assessment orders based thereupon are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. 9. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in DEEPANJAN ROY Vs ADIT (INT TAXN) 2 HYD & ANR [Writ

Raju Chandrasekar, Oduvanpatti, Tiruppattur (Tk) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karaikudi, Sekkalai Road

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

ITA 3000/CHNY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3000/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

very out, we notice that the assessee has filed a legal ground challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Ld.AR vehemently argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward ... 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

D.B. Associate, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2995/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2995/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, 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 8(1), 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

Palanisamy Jayakumar, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2969/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

very outset, we notice that the assessee has filed a legal ground challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Ld.AR vehemently argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward ... 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

Palanisamy Jayakumar, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2968/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Palanisamy Jayakumar, Triuppur vs. Iot Ward 2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2967/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Krishna Prabha Sundarapandy, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2304/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2304/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

assessee is a retired employee of MTNL and had relied upon TRP to file her return. In the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the appellant has made a voluntary disallowance and paid taxes on the amount of HRA. Considering the overall circumstances

C-2016 Itchiputhur Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2191/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2191/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 C-2016 Itchiputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society, 12Th Road, Ward 1, Itchiputhur Village, Arakkonam Tk, Vellore. Vellore 631 003. [Pan: Aabac1870C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 5 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P(2)(a)

however, there was no reply from the assessee. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing statutory notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2023 and in response, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at ₹.23,74,370/-. In response to the notice under ... filed original ITR under section 139(1) of the Act, which was filed the same for the first time in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessed

Asia Coke Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1403/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1403/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asia Coke Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bascon Futura Sv, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aakca4655Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Sanchita, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

appeal for adjudication. 3. Ground No. 3 is raised challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in failing to appreciate the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], was issued by the JAO instead of FAO. 4. We note that the Assessing Officer ... reopened the assessment to assess foreign remittance made and consequently, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 and there was no response from the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148(A)(b) of the Act, the assessee has not filed any reply, since the assessee

Shivi Mukesh Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 35(1)(ii)

assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna ... year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with

Late Ramesh Mohanlal Jain (Through Legal Heir Mrs. Bhavna Ramesh Jain), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 518/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

opening the assessment of the deceased Assessee, Jatin Bhagwandas Shah, has been initiated in August 2024. It is now well settled that notice under Section 148 cannot be issued to a dead person, and if it is done, the same is null and void. 5 Late Ramesh Mohanlal Jain

Adesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 62(1), Delhi

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 of the appeal is partly

ITA 6930/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Adesh Kumar Gupta Ito, Ward-62(1), Delhi House No. 6, Sector -11, Pocket-C- Vs Civic Centre, Delhi – 110002. 5, Rohini, Delhi – 110085. [Pan: Aaipg9669H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 145Section 147Section 254(1)Section 69C

appeal is partly allowed. 6. I find that assessee has raised a specific ground of appeal against reopening under section 147, issuance of notice under section 148 and other procedural aspect of reassessment however; no specific submission was made during the hearing. Therefore, ground no. 1 is treated

Sat Narain Sharma, Rohtak vs. Ward 2, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6167/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sat Narayan Sharma Ward-2, Rohtak Village & Post Office Bohar, Dist. Vs Aayakarbhawan, Rohtak, Rohtak, Haryana – 124021. Haryana – 124001. [Pan: Afjps5702B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 254(1)

assessee submits that case of assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 was reopened by issuing notice under section dated 07.04.2022. Copy of notice under section 148 is placed at page no. 8 of paper book. The case of assessee was reopened after passing order under section 148A(d) dated ... returned in next financial year. The assessing officer instead of considering the reply of assessee concluded that it a fit case for issuing notice under section 148, despite recording all such facts in order under section 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022. The assessing officer ultimately in the assessment order has made

Bansal Industries, Hansi vs. ITO Ward 1 Hissar, Hissar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 5404/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice..... 149. (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 the case ... case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself." Post Finance Act 2021 "148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147. and subject

Bansal Industries, Hansi vs. ITO Ward 1 Hissar, Hissar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 5395/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Pankaj Goel, Delhi

ITA 4159/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Pankaj Goel, Income Tax, 662/3A, Ghati Road, Central Circle-3, Anand Paravt, Central Delhi, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aswpg8949E (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.236/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.4159/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Pankaj Goel, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 662/3A, Ghati Road, Tax, Anand Paravt, Central Circle-3, Central Delhi, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aswpg8949E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Sh. Siddharth Bajaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Siddharth Bhim Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.4159/Del/2025 Along With Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 236/Del/2025 For Assessment & C.O. No.236/Del/2025

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

declaring a NIL income, after claiming exemption under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The initial notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2016-17 was issued on 28.06.2021. The said notice was unsustainable as it was issued in accordance with the statutory regime ... petitioner's case that the said notice is barred by limitation. 9. It is material to note that the original notice under Section 148 of the Act [deemed to be a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in terms of the decision in the case

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

failed to file its income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 by the due date, only submitting it on 13.01.2024 after receiving a notice under Section 148. This belated filing disqualifies the appellant from claiming exemption under Section 13A, as timely compliance is non-negotiable. 10.4 The search operation yielded

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68