← 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

Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education & Research (Maher), Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2323/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2323/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Meenakshi Academy Of Higher Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Education & Research [Maher], Exemptions Ward 3, 12, Vembuli Amman Koil Street, Chennai. West K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [Pan: Aaetm9880C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca ""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 : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca Drew Our Attention To The Application Seeking Permission To File Additional Grounds Of Appeal Dated 23.10.2025 Placed

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the assessment unit of NFAC. Further, we note that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras

Anandavadi Primary Agrl Coop Credit Society Limited R777, Sendurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Perambalur

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

ITA 2320/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2320/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anandavadi Primary Agril. Co-Op. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited R777, Chinna Perambalur. Anandavadi, Sendurai, Ariyalur 621718, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aatfa1893N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Petition Filed, But, However, Filed An Application Seeking Permission To File Additional

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Additional ground: That the reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Year 2020- 21 are bad in law and viod ab initio, as the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2024 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer ... assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the assessment unit of NFAC. Further, we note that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras

Asmath Basha Akthar Basha, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 2314/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2314/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asmath Basha Akthar Basha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D. No. 51-9, Bharathi Nagar, Iind Ward 1, Cross, Newpet, Krishnagiri 635 001, Krishnagiri. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Afgpa0229L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, 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 : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Application Seeking Permission To File Additional Grounds Of Appeal Dated 10.10.2025 Placed

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

assessee is reproduced herein below: 1. The Reassessment Proceeding is null and void, as the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 dated 11.04.2022 were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Krishnagiri, being the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) violating section 151A and Faceless Reassessment Scheme ... submits that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 11.04.2022 were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Krishnagiri. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the assessment order passed by the Faceless mechanism [Assessing Officer

Vishal Krishna, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2258/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishal Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. T-27, New No. T-3, Income Tax, 12Th Street, Anna Nagar S.O., Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpv0851L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 105 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 K. Vaitheeswaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have paid ₹.2 crores by cash to the assessee and also admitted as income for AY 2012-13. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 06.12.2018 for the reason that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of the provisions

Subramanian, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Erode

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

ITA 1823/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1823/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramanian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 78, Co-Operative Colony, Vilankurichi, Ward 1(4), Coimbatore 641 035. Erode. [Pan:Cerps9236R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha M. Mullamudi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Samatha M. Mullamudi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

file his return of income. We note that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 18.09.2019 after following due procedures. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return

Om Prakash Bansal (HUF), Naya Baz Delhiar vs. Ac Circle 46(1) New Delhi, New Delh

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

ITA 2984/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaom Prakash Bansal (Huf), Vs. Acit, Circle 46(1), 3990, F/F, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aabho0485L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shir Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 19.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Application For Admission Of Additional Grounds Of Appeal Wherein Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal Are Raised :-

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shir Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

reopening on various grounds. 5 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income Tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such notice. According to Petitioner as per instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31st January, 2011 issued ... about Rs. 64,34,663/- and therefore, the jurisdiction will be that of DC/AC and not ITO. Mr. Jain submitted that since notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by ITO, and not by DC/AC that is by a person who did not have any jurisdiction over

Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

ITA 544/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.544/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani 11/12 Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Chamber Building,, Jaishree Talkies Road, Near Sardar Patel Bhavan, Junagadh. 362001, Bhoothnath Chambers, College Road, Junagadh 362001 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abupj1530B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 21/03/2024, U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 1

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

purchase of property. In this case Return of Income for the year under consideration was e-filed by the assessee, against the notice, under section 148 of the Act, declaring therein total taxable income of Rs. 9,82,560/-. A search and seizure action were conducted

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the case and obtained the necessary approval from the competent authority. Consequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. No return of income was filed in response to the said notice. Thereafter, notices under Section

Manohar, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 564/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.564/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manohar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ward – 3, Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605 014. [Pan:Awmpm5480E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit For Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT for Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Assessing Officer, on noticing cash deposit in the society bank belonging to the assessee, reopened 2 I.T.A. No.564/Chny/25 the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and in response, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Further, the Assessing ... cash deposits as found by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s account, but, however, no response from the assessee neither to the notice under section 148 of the Act nor to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act and show-cause notices. He argued vehemently

Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1371/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ Patel Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Patidar Faliyu, Bhestan Gam, Gate, Surat-395 001 Choryasi, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bispp 4863 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

were attracted. The case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 was re-opened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21.04.2021. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by AO on the basis of decision ... Court in its subsequent decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) held that reopening notice under section 148 for AY 2013-14 is not valid, if escaped income is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. The Ld. AR, therefore, submitted that