← 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

Mingma Sherpa, Gangtok vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 1442/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmamingma Sherpa Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Above Of Ind Selep Tanki, East Sikkim, Gangtok-737101. Pan No. : Dtups1375C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Apurba Saha, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. In This Case, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, I.E., A.Y. 2017–18. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹10,15,14,300 In A Bank Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Gangtok Branch. Accordingly, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated By Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Subsequent Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Act Was Also Issued. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Making An 2 Mingma Sherpa Addition Of ₹10,15,14,300 Under Section 69A Of The Act & Taxed The Same Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Apurba Saha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT- DR
Section 10Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Gangtok Branch. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority. Subsequent notice under Section

Ranjith Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2041/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2041/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjith Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 418A, Flat No. 1 & 2, 1St Floor, 2Nd Link Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Road, Sadasivam Nagar North, Chennai. Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan: Adnpr0643L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 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 358 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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 148Section 69A

assessee is an individual and no return of income filed. The Assessing Officer found cash deposits in current account and by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, concluded the assessment by holding that there was no compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices and estimated