← All Phrases

“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
53
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
50
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
32
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
31
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
28
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
26
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
25
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)

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1444/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

section 147 could be made only in respect of those income which is subject matter of section 148A(b) notice and order under section 148A(d). The ld. AR further submitted that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) could have been made only by invoking explanation ... limited issue for adjudication before us is when the addition emanating from the reasons for reopening i.e. notice under section 148A(b) & order under section 148A(d), is subsequently deleted, then whether any other addition made during reassessment would survive or not. It is relevant here to consider the following

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1443/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

section 147 could be made only in respect of those income which is subject matter of section 148A(b) notice and order under section 148A(d). The ld. AR further submitted that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) could have been made only by invoking explanation ... limited issue for adjudication before us is when the addition emanating from the reasons for reopening i.e. notice under section 148A(b) & order under section 148A(d), is subsequently deleted, then whether any other addition made during reassessment would survive or not. It is relevant here to consider the following

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1442/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 250Section 40

section 147 could be made only in respect of those income which is subject matter of section 148A(b) notice and order under section 148A(d). The ld. AR further submitted that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) could have been made only by invoking explanation ... limited issue for adjudication before us is when the addition emanating from the reasons for reopening i.e. notice under section 148A(b) & order under section 148A(d), is subsequently deleted, then whether any other addition made during reassessment would survive or not. It is relevant here to consider the following

Salim, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Saharanpur

ITA 4512/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4512/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 4513/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Salim, Vs Income Tax Officer, Khairdee, Vill.-Maganpura, Post- Saharanpur, Badshaibagh Behat, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 Uttar Pradesh-247121 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Gxmps2271C Assessee By: Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 29A

days, the AO had, by virtue of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (which was necessarily required to accompany a notice under Section 148 of the Act). The said period expired ... Delhi); 2024 SCC OnLine Del 330.] . Consequently, the validity of sanction for issuing the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 should be tested with reference to amended section 151. If so tested, it is evident that sanction was not granted by an authority specified under

Ashish Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2164/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

fair play and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred while passing an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced

Ashish Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2163/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

fair play and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred while passing an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced

Ashish Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2162/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

fair play and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred while passing an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced

Ashish Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2161/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

fair play and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred while passing an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced

Ashish Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2160/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

fair play and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred while passing an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced

Upneet Singh Arneja, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 45(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

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

Order in the case of Ashish Agarwal notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 18-05-2022 and consequent order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 28-07-2022 was issued. The case of the assessee relates to the A.Y. 2017-17 and the notice

Atul Bhanudas Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 970/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Bhanudas Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, Shetphal Haveli, Dhenu Nagar, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Bawada S.O, Shetphal Haveli, Pune – 413103. Maharashtra. Pan: Ectps5299N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 14.02.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

assessment year have elapsed and the amount of alleged escapement is only Rs.11,70,300/- which is less than Rs.50 lakhs, no order under section 148A(d) could be passed. 6.2 Therefore, order u/s.148A(d) is bad in law. Hence, consequential assessment order ... case of Holiday Developers Private Limited Vs. ITO 159 taxmann.com 178(Bombay) dated 29.01.2024 held as under : ―1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khal Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 757/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

A.Y.2017-18 and A.Y.2016-17. Copies of these orders are in paper book. The Relevant paragraphs for A.Y.2017-18 and for A.Y.2016-17 of the order under section 148A(d) are reproduced as under : “For A.Y.2017-18 : 05. Findings of the AO: - In this case, the assessee has not filed any return of income ... case of Holiday Developers Private Limited Vs. ITO 159 taxmann.com 178(Bombay) dated 29.01.2024 held as under : “1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khan Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 756/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

A.Y.2017-18 and A.Y.2016-17. Copies of these orders are in paper book. The Relevant paragraphs for A.Y.2017-18 and for A.Y.2016-17 of the order under section 148A(d) are reproduced as under : “For A.Y.2017-18 : 05. Findings of the AO: - In this case, the assessee has not filed any return of income ... case of Holiday Developers Private Limited Vs. ITO 159 taxmann.com 178(Bombay) dated 29.01.2024 held as under : “1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs. Pawan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5538/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149

proceedings, which began on 1-6-2021, to issue a notice U/s.148 and said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under section 148A(d), thus, an order U/s.148A(d) was required to be passed within said twenty-nine days notwithstanding time stipulated U/s.148A(d) - Held, yes - Whether

Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Delhi vs. Pawan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5537/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149

proceedings, which began on 1-6-2021, to issue a notice U/s.148 and said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under section 148A(d), thus, an order U/s.148A(d) was required to be passed within said twenty-nine days notwithstanding time stipulated U/s.148A(d) - Held, yes - Whether

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs. Pawan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5536/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149

proceedings, which began on 1-6-2021, to issue a notice U/s.148 and said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under section 148A(d), thus, an order U/s.148A(d) was required to be passed within said twenty-nine days notwithstanding time stipulated U/s.148A(d) - Held, yes - Whether

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Shivrashi Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

ITA 1098/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(2)Section 253Section 68

issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding ... notice under Section 148 of the Act so as to provide the AO a minimum of seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. If the time available to the AO to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section

Mangalam Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2494/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 2494/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Mangalam Viniyog Pvt. Limited,……………..Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aadcm5074C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Subhas Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

from the ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata. Notice under section 148 dated 05.07.2022 was issued and served through ITBA along with copy of order under section 148A(d) dated 05.07.2022. Subsequently, revised order under section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed on 27.09.2022 on the direction

Chahida Begam, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry Range, Income Tax Office, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

eyes of law. 3. Legal issue is reproduced as under: The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to the prescription of law / procedure in relation there to and hence ought

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sanjula Sumati Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

assessed at Rs.5,82,31,560/-The assessee's case was reopened u/s.148A, and as per procedure laid down under section 148A, order under section 148A(d) was passed on 20/03/2023. 3.3 In the order passed under section 148A(d), the Ld.AO relied on the information received through insight portal