“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

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 8318/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69BSection 92A

Rs.20,342/-. On the basis of such information, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148. It is an admitted position that the assessee had not filed the return of 8 Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta income under section ... returns of income. Further, in HDFC Bank Ltd., the assessment had already been completed under section 143(3) prior to the issuance of notice under section 148. Therefore, the facts of those decisions are distinguishable and the reliance placed thereon is misplaced. On the other hand, respectfully following the decision

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6769/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR)

Section 139(1)Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-20, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section ... rejected the grounds of the assessee. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR contended that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021. The Ld. AR raised a preliminary objection regarding the validity of the sanction granted under section

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Delhi Control Devices Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5909/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 147Section 53

Considering the contentions of the parties, averments in the Petition, the affidavit in reply and the statement of learned ASG:- (a) issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to petitioner company after the approval of the resolution plan for a period prior to closing is invalid ... available to them in law to take action, if any, against expromoter, Other third parties, but the same cannot be done by issuing notice Under section 148 of the Act which requires petitioner to file the return of income, and thereafter in response to such notice participate in further proceedings

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

India) but had not filed his return of income for the said year, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 03.04.2022 was issued by the A.O. 3. As the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance ... Page. No 7 I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri section 149(1) of the Act as was applicable at the time of issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 03.04.2022, was divested of his jurisdiction to issue any such notice seeking to reopen the case of the assessee

Pedaveeti Swathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1785/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1785/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Pedaveeti Swathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Fugps2126J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/02/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

read with the CBDT notification. It is submitted that as per CBDT Circular No.18/2022, dt. 29.03.2022, Faceless Assessing Officer ought to have issued notice under section 148 of the Act to continue the proceedings thereafter, whereas in the present matter the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 ... CBDT that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, but had not filed her return of income, issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 25/03/2023. However, the assessee failed to comply and did not file her return of income. 4 Pedaveeti Swathi

Late Abdullah Abdulmajeed, Rep. by L/H, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

facet of the submissions is that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by way of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The appellant submits the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act in consequence to passing of order ... scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147 or issuance of notice under section 148 「or conducting of enquiries or issuance of show-cause notice or passing of order under section 148A] or sanction for issue of such notice

Thangavel, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 10(3) Che, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/CHNY/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3207/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate for Mr. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT

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

completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; ****** 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April ... section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Thangavel :- 4 -: Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired

Govindan Gnanavel, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3202/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

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 of the Act which is dated 06.04.2022 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

Ramachandran Meenakshi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 3182/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

under: - (Para 9 Page 64) 9. A perusal of Section 151(i) would show that, the specified authority for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 148 within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is, the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner ... approval was obtained before issuance of 148 notice in terms of provision of Section 151(ii), which is mandatory. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was issued in the present case in violation of provision of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, the initiation

S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

dismissed the appeal ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act which is dated 05.04.2022 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

S 1284, Thathaiyangarpatty Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3171/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

Amit Shantaram Bagade Mited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Taxation Ward 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

sake of convenience and discussion, wherein the assessee has taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld.AO/DRP erred in upholding notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") and the reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20. The notice under section 148A(b), proceedings under section ... 148A and notice under section 148 are wholly without jurisdiction and there is no valid 'information' suggesting escapement of income. 2. The ld.AO/DRP erred in upholding notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") and the reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20 without appreciating that

Sudhir Namdev Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

invalid show-cause notice under section 148A(b) and passing the order under section 148A(d) on the same day as the notice under section 148, thereby violating the statutory requirement of granting a minimum period of 7 days to respond. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant

Amit Shantaram Bagade, Thane vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

basis of information received from DDIT Investigation. There is no even a prima facie independent inquiry made by AO before issue of notice under Section 148. This is nothing but borrowed satisfaction and the assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. This view is taken

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jorss Bullion Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

Income Tax Officer, Krishnagiri vs. Manoharan Ramesh, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2798/CHNY/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2798/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

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

assessee’s bank account, along with contract receipts. After issuing notice under section 148A(b) and considering the reply, the AO issued notice under section 148 and completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B. In doing so, the AO concluded that the assessee had not furnished adequate

ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. A P Trading and Finance Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2801/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata A P Trading & Finance Company Limited Vs P-39, Princep Street, Kol – 700069. (Pan: Aadca8815B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kedia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal

Jyoti Shroff, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 2278/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Shroff Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

order is bad in law for the reason that the ld. Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction over the assessee, in fact, not issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The ld. A.R. further challenges that as per the CBDT Instruction, monetary limits for assigning cases being non-corporate assessee ... have been fixed, but in the present case, notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the ITO, Ward-47(1), though he has got no jurisdiction to issue the notice. The ld. A.R. further submits that the assessee has filed the Income Tax Return acknowledgment

Juee Sudhir Gore, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5868/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 56(2)(x)

ground of absence of approval under Section 151 of the Act from the appropriate authority. It was also contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on 22.07.2022 was beyond the period of three years as the time extended by virtue of The Taxation and Other Laws ... Occupation Certificate was issued on 16.02.2000. It is next contended that under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act, the notice under Section 148 of the Act could not have been issued more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is submitted that