“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

Subhadra Kumari Mudigonda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 985/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.985/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Subhadra Kumari Vs. Income Tax Officer Mudigonda, Hyderabad Ward 1(3) Pan: Airpm9926C Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Subhadra Kumari Mudigonda (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25.04.2025 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

Mudigonda the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In this regards the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act and as well as the order under section 148A(d) of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ... CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, issued under section 151A(1) and (2) of the Act, mandates that with effect from 29.03.2022, all notices under section 148 of the Act must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal

Kineta Global Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

section (ii) of Section 151 of the Act, viz. Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General/Chief Commissioner /Director General. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 21/04/2022, had been issued in the present case after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income ... accorded on 21.04.2022 vide reference No.100000028982572 (Page 92 of APB). 8. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 21.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the prescribed 7 Kineta Global Limited

Gurram Naveen, Rajanna Sircilla vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.686/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Gurram Naveen Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajanna Sircilla Ward-2 Pan:Bihpg3983L Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Pavan Kumar Gorti राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Gurram Naveen (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 20.02.2025 For The A.Y 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Pavan Kumar GortiFor Respondent: : Shri R Kumaran, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69ASection 69C

section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). On the basis of certain information, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2023 to the assessee. In compliance with the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

offered any income relating to this transaction. Based on this information, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act, by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, on 10.02.2020. In response, the assessee filed her return of income on 27.03.2021 admitting total income of Rs.1 ... circumstances. The A.O. did not 3 Subbalakshmi Pinnama accept these explanations and held that, the assessee admitted the income only after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, and that, had the case not been reopened, the income would have escaped assessment. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty

Praveen Kumar Diddige, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1370/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1370/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2017-2018 Praveen Kumar The Income Tax Officer, Diddige, Medak Ward-1, Sangareddy. Vs. Pin – 502 291. Pin – 502001. Pan Aeapd8792G Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pv Raghavendra Kumar िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: & Ca K A Sai Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri R. Kumaran, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: And CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri R. Kumaran, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr. CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued ... without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed." 7.3. The assessee also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Manish Jagdish

1.Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kolkata vs. Anushreya Investment Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 68

recorded his satisfaction in the said approval and merely stated that ‘yes I am satisfied’ ‘it is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act’ ‘approval accorded under Section 151 of the Act’. The learned AO prayed that the learned PCIT before according approval ... does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this

Arulmigu Vaikunda Perumal and Embarswamy Devasthanam, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

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

ITA 2525/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2525/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Arulmiguvaikunda The Income Tax Officer, Perumal & Embarswamy Vs. Exemptions Ward 2, Devasthanam, Chennai. No.01, Sunguvachatram, Sungavachatram S.O, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram – 602 105. Pan: Aafta 4259C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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, Exemptions ... 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

Sri Muthu Agencies, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2507/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2507/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sri Muthu Agencies, The Income Tax Officer, No.9, 3Rd Cross, Vs. Ward 3, Sri Ramnagar, Puducherry Achariyapuram, Villianur, Puducherry – 605 110. Pan: Achfs 9277N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 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

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2491/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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 3(3), 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

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2490/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (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 Y. Sridhar, Fca : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Trd 309 Pallinatham Mpcs, Trichy vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 2482/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2482/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Trd 309 Pallinatham The Income Tax Officer, Mpcs, Vs. Ward 2(1), Pallinatham Valavanthi Post, Trichy Musiri Tk, Tiruchirappalli – 621 211. Pan: Aafat 2275G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Alagappan, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Alagappan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

which had made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions, it could be said that there was material on basis of which notice under section 148 could be issued. It is further pertinent to mention here that in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease ... case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer is justified in reopening the assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act when no new material was unearthed justifying the re-opening of the assessment, the Hon’ble High Court is noted

Avanti Parshav Multiventure Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5205/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during course of proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped ... assess some other income. If the assessing officer intends to ITA Nos. 5100 to 5106/Mum/2025 & Ors. Lokesh Khabya & Ors. do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary. Similar view was taken by Bombay High Court in PCIT vs Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. and SLP before Supreme Court