← All Phrases

“section 148 notice”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 148432 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 148 notice is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 148 notice

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 section 148 notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Krska Capital Private Limited, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4666/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of section 148 notices under the old regime {Which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices}. As discussed in the preceding segment of the judgment

Sarit Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of section 148 notices under the old regime {Which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices}. As discussed in the preceding segment of the judgment

Sumitra Devi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee denies the service of the notices including the preliminary jurisdictional section 148 notice generated by the AO because all the notices are uploaded in E-filing portal without any real time alert and neither transmitted electronically ... portal was viewed by the assessee and in the present case section 148 was uploaded on 30.3.2021, thus the date of viewing the section 148 notice may be on or after 1st April, 2021 accordingly the reassessment order dated 26.3.2022 passed under the unamended provisions of section 147 is vitiated

Kalpana Sanjay Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 9047/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and 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-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 1Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 7 Assessment Year 2017-2018 148 ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 9046/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

Year 2017-2018 section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

Pakarahalli Narayanappa Srinivasgowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1373/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 148Section 250Section 254

legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment

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

Therefore, TOLA continue to apply to the Income T a x Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 an 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter ... Revenue issue 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 they were issued beyond the time limi specified under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate

Bajranglal Bhawarlal Sharma, Borivali East vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

ITA 285/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SalujaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

Assessment Year 2017-2018 d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

Sapna Umesh Dutta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 41(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 263/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: passing Order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice dated 31/07/2022, the Assessing Officer obtained approval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. The reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 23/05/2023, under Section 147 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 27/11/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred th

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5967/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala &For Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

that "the benefit of the new provisions shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided Section 148 notice has been issued on or after 1-4-2021." However, the Court observed that the Revenue issued the reassessment notices under a "bona fide

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3866/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Hindustan Petroleum Tax-1(1)(1), Corporation Limited Mumbai Petroleum House Jamshedji Tata Road, Marine Lines S.O Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaach1118B) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Hirali Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075143492(1) Dated 27.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By The Assessment Unit, U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Sec. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.05.2023 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 9,60,00,000/ - On Account Of Disallowance Of Investment Allowance Claimed U/S. 32Ac On Dispensing Units In Retail Outlets Ignoring The Fact That The Dispensing Units Do Not Fall Within The Meaning Of Plant & Hence, Not Eligible For Claim Of Deduction U/S. 32Ac.

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 32A

Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause 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 they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jinalben Bhavikbhai Vora, Gujrat

ITA 7588/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the expiry of 6 years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-2014). Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India VS. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], communication, dated 26/05/2022, was sent to the Assessee intimating that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Fi

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices].As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment ... from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021,). The clock of limitation which has stopped with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notice under Section 148A

M/S.Wellknown Polyesters Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8704/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

ITO-23(3)(6).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6132/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

For Appellant: Shri Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 68

notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 – to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts “shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148- A of the Income Tax Act as substituted ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5754/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

For Appellant: Shri Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 68

notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 – to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts “shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148- A of the Income Tax Act as substituted ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai

ITA 7880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69C

Courts in holding that the benefit of new provisions shall be made available in respect of proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided section 148 notice has been issued on or after 01.04.2021 since new provisions are remedial and benevolent in nature which are substituted with specific object to protect

ACIT22(1), Mumbai vs. Spr Associates, Mumbai

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

ITA 6562/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia, ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

I.T.A. No. 6562/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 53/Mum/2026 d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

Mandeep Kaur, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Fatehabad

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 630/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.630/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Mandeep Kaur Ito Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Museh Ali Hizrawan, Khurd, To Fatehabad Rohtak - 124001 Fatehabad, Haryana – 125050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Datpk-9813-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 17-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144Of The Act On30-04-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Urged Legal Ground No.4 To Assail The Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao. In This Ground Of Appeal, It Has Been Pleaded That The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) As Well As Issue Of Notice U/S 148

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted ... assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from

Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

ITA 582/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.582/Bang/2025

For Appellant: CA Darshit Naik, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

IT(IT)A No.582/Bang/2025 Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT

Arun Duraiswamy, Mysore, Karnataka vs. ITO, Intl. Taxation Ward 1(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Deepak Gunashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69Section 69C

High Court held that the validity of a notice must be judged on the law existing on the date of issuance of the Section 148 notice. It emphasized that "the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under section 148 could