“order under section 148A(d)”

ReassessmentSection 148ASection 148A771 judgments

The decision most relied on for order under section 148A(d) is Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on order under section 148A(d)

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court

524

citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

466 ITR 474 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment notices under Section 148A, issued in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, must be issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO

165 Taxmann.com 581 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under section 148A, including the order under section 148A(d), is a mandatory procedural step before reassessment proceedings can be initiated under section 147/148. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

463 ITR 702 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The validity of sanction for issuing orders under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 must be tested with reference to the amended section 151. If sanction is not granted by an authority specified under section 151(ii), such orders and notices are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT

164 Taxmann.com 414 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

An order passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent proceedings are void if the Assessing Officer provides insufficient opportunity for the assessee to file a reply before issuing the notice under Section 148A(b).

Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

159 Taxmann.com 178 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Where more than three years have expired from the end of a relevant assessment year, the sanctioning authority under section 151(ii) for reassessment proceedings must be the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. An order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 based on the latter's approval are liable to be quashed.

Core Logistic Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

175 Taxmann.com 453 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is the specified authority for issuing a notice under Section 148 within three years when the amount involved exceeds fifty lakhs, as per Section 151(i) and Section 149(1). An order under Section 148A(d) requires approval from such a specified authority.

Royal Bitumen (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

164 Taxmann.com 606 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Orders passed under section 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before issuing the notice.

Judgments citing order under section 148A(d)

Techno Residency Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

notice issued under Section 148 of the Old Regime as notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the New Regime and passed order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the New Regime was issued by the Assessing Officer Act between July and September ... According to the Assessing Officer the Assessee had failed to furnish explanation along with documentary evidence and therefore, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed and notice under Section 148 was issued on 06/04/2022. Therefore, it is admitted position that for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 notice

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

Mandamus or writ of Certiorari or any other writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the impugned order under section 148A(d) dated 05.04.2022. (d) To issue a writ of Mandamus or direction or order in the nature of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as

ITA 350/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 40A(3)Section 69

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

limb of argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department deserves to be rejected.” 27. Accordingly, the passing of order under section 148A(d), dated 30/03/2022 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2022 both by the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 385/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Doddi Roopa, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 413/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

with M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises and M/s. Vihan Enterprises initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023, was passed, and a notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2023, was issued by the AO. 3. During ... DCIT vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa the assessee has failed to justify the purchases of Rs. 4,99,65,247/-, passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2023, wherein the assessee was called upon

Dileep Kumar Sakamuri Chenchu Venkata, Srikalahasti vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Tirupati

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

ITA 1615/HYD/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234CSection 23BSection 250Section 69A

income for the said year, i.e., A.Y. 2015-16, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The AO issued an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 04.04.2022. Thereafter, the AO issued Notice U/s 148 of the Act on 05.04.2022. 3. In response to the notice issued ... notices under section 148 of the Act were issued by the local jurisdictional officer and not in the prescribed faceless manner. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notices under section 148 of the Act are issued on 29-4-2022, i.e., after the "Faceless Jurisdiction

Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju Chintalapati, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 144/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

notices under section 148 of the Act were issued by the local jurisdictional officer and not in the prescribed faceless manner. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notices under section 148 of the Act are issued on 29-4-2022, i.e., after the "Faceless Jurisdiction

Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju Chintalapati, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 143/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. 49. In the present case, the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 have been issued on 07.04.2022 relatable to the relevant Assessment Year 2018- 19 i.e., after more than three years ... from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and before issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by the respondent No.1, which is permissible only

Manikumari Samanchi, Zaheerabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 1345/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14BSection 69A

Manikumari Samanchi, Zaheerabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 1344/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14BSection 69A

Siva Sankara Reddy Tunga, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1060/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

subject year, i.e., AY 2016- 17, issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/03/2023. 4 Siva Sankara Reddy Tunga vs. ITO Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 25/05/2023, was thereafter served upon ... Assessing Officer (JAO), i.e., Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad, Page No.1 of APB. The Ld. AR further submitted that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/03/2023, had been issued by the said JAO. The Ld. AR submitted that as per “e- Assessment of Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Warangal

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

ITA 996/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 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, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43BSection 68

under consideration, i.e., post demonetization, which was not commensurate with his return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/07/2022 was passed by the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/07/2022 ... fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. 49. In the present case, the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 have been issued on 07.04.2022 relatable to the relevant Assessment Year 2018- 19 i.e., after more than three years

Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5224/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

very reason because I was not aware about the Income-tax proceedings. Subsequently, I was in receipt of an order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 31- 03-2022. (pg 26 to 32) 5. Upon going through the aforesaid notice and order I could understand that there

Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5223/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

Mohd Ayyub, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandramohd. Ayyub Vs. Ito, Ward – 28(1) C-15/1, Shaheen Bagh, Civic Centre, Abul Fazal, Enclave-Ii, Minto Road, Jamia Nagar Okhla, New Delhi – 110002 New Delhi – 110025 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Boxpa9409P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

further reply was filed on 01.07.2022 copy of which is available at page 185 – 190 of the paper book on 22.07.2022 order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed. 5. The substantial issue arises out of compulsory acquisition compensation/interest which has been disallowed and impugned addition

ITO, Ward 21(1), New Delhi vs. Ruptex Mineral Water Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3074/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarito, Ward 21 (1), Vs. Ruptex Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. K.No.799/1, Village Burari, Jagatpur, P.O. Jagarpur, Delhi – 110 084. (Pan :Aabcr0261Q) Co No.211/Del/2025 (In Ita No.3074/Del/2025) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ruptex Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd., Vs, Ito, Ward 21 (1), K.No.799/1, Village Burari, New Delhi. Jagatpur, P.O. Jagarpur, Delhi – 110 084. (Pan :Aabcr0261Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 148ASection 69A

Enterprises respectively, the bogus entities and proprietorship concerns controlled by Shri Yashpal Gupta and Smt. Rani Sharma. 3 CO No.211/Del/2025 3. The order under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 29.03.2022 stating that the assessee has taken accommodation entries