“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

Sathi Bhai Sathyavrithan, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 68(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6274/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sathi Bhai Sathyavrithan, Rz 31-32, Roshan Mandi Ward-68(1), Surya Kiran Hospital, New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan: Ayqps2816L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

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

Neelam Jain, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

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

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

such manner is thus flawed in law." In view of above facts and well settled legal principles, the granting of sanction order, the notice under Section 148 of the Act are held as invalid. 9. In light of above material facts, ground of appeal no.1 of Revenue being de void

North East Hire Purchase Company (India) Pvt.Ltd., Guwahati vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Guwahati

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

notice of re-assessment under section 148A(b) but would certainly not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice under section 148 post an order under section 148A(d)." 8. As pointed out in the aforesaid mentioned decision, the term "information" in Explanation-1 under section

Ram Kumar Maurya, Bhadohi vs. ITO, Ward - 1(5), Bhadohi

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

Bhadohi, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the statutory notice issued by the Assessing Officer ITA No.140/ALLD/2025 Page ... alongwith the appellate order dated 22.07.2024 passed against the appellant deserves to be set aside. 2. BECAUSE the jurisdictional notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019, alleged to have been issued was not served upon the appellant under due process of law as laid down under section

Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Handia vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3), Prayagraj

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

ITA 136/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Sandeep Kumar Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 012, Saitapur, Barethi Allahabad Handia, Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Blapp5054M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.12,27,477/- In Bank Account No.0369000112307099 Maintained With Punjab National Bank & Of Rs.86,000/- In Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of Baroda During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing ITA No.136/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 7 notice under section 148 of the Act. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer ... erred in law and on facts in upholding the view of the ld. Assessing Officer, without considering the fact that notice under section 148 had been issued without providing a copy of approval under section 151, if any, as para 2.2 of circular no. F. No. 299/10/2022-Dir. (Inv. III)/611

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Jyoti Mediservices Ltd., Allahabad

ITA 129/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Allahabad High Court in the case of Shri Mohd. Ayub vs. ITO [2012] 346 ITR 30 (Alld) dealt with non issue of separate notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and held it to be invalid because each assessment year was to be taken as an independent unit ... Years:2011-12 to 13-14 93 provisions of Section 153D, it would emerge that when in a case where requirement of separate notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act was given absolute primacy therefore, in the context of Section 153D of the I.T. Act (where each word

Mohammad Ghufran, Kaushambi vs. ITO - 2(5), Kaushambi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit SinghFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. However, the assessee neither responded to the notice under section 148 of the Act nor filed any return of income

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 115/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 114/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 113/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Bhargav Ram Munagapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 69A

under section 148A(b) of the Act. In response, assessee failed to furnish any information. Accordingly, the case was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 after passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee has not filed return of income ... challenges the assessment and goes to the root of the matter. 7. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 was issued on 03.04.2022 without following the procedure prescribed by the new provision inserted on 01.04.2021. Ld.AR also

Murlidhar Lohia, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 418/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Murlidhar Lohia V. The Income Tax Officer 106, Anand Palace Ward 1(3)(1) Allengaj, Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akbpl3586F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.04.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 16.08.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,42,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act, On The Basis Of The Information That The Assessee Had Received Cash Credit Of Rs.14,21,000/- During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Details Of The Aforesaid Cash Credit With Documentary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, on the basis of the information that the assessee had received cash credit of Rs.14,21,000/- during the year under consideration ... under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 17.03.2022 and further order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 27.03.2022 along with notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2022 needed to be quashed. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that the assessee had not raised

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh

K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2092/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Any Other Issue.

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and its notifications. Therefore, for issuing a reassessment notice under section 148 after 1 April 2021, the Revenue would still have to look at: (i) the time limit specified under section 149 of the new regime ... 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

Hilton Dealmark Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Circle 7(1), Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection

ITA 1002/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 20Section 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 read with Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation ... Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as showcause 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 that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2388/KOL/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

notice of re- assessment under Section 148A(b) but would certainly not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice under Section 148 post an order under Section 148A(d). …… 16. This Court is of the opinion that significance of issuance of a show cause notice ... stage prior to issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Act has been lost on the Respondents. This Court takes judicial notice that in a majority of reassessment cases post 1st April, 2021, the orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act use a template/general reason

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2385/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

Dinesh Kumar and Sons, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2511/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2511/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dinesh Kumar & Sons The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), No.41, M.S.Koil Street, Chennai. Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. Pan: Aamhr 9861G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

outset, we notice that the assessee has filed addition grounds of appeal 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 ... material on record. By way of Additional grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised legal issue of assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee relate to a pure legal issue, which does require examination

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 1612/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक