← 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)

Balbir Singh, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 5755/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

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 ... 5756/Del/2024 Balbir Singh Vs. NFAC 71. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Vighneshwar Ispat Pvt Ltd, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.343/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 68

remaining time to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 or pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 5.1.5 The notice dated 26/07/2022 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order dated 24/05/2023, framed under Section ... Income tax Act, 1961 , was set aside. 5.1.6 In result the appeal is allowed, and the impugned notice dated 26/07/ 2022, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 is hereby set aside.” 9 ITO-3(1), Raipur Vs. Vighneshwar

Anil Ramniranjan Kejriwal, Mumbai vs. Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assesse for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 stands allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income. The Ld.AO issued order under section 148A(d) rejecting assessee’s objections Thereafter notice under section 148 was issued on 25/03/2022. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO issued

Anil Ramniranjan Kejriwal, Mumbai vs. Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assesse for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 stands allowed

ITA 3335/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income. The Ld.AO issued order under section 148A(d) rejecting assessee’s objections Thereafter notice under section 148 was issued on 25/03/2022. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO issued

Anil Ramniranjan Kejariwal, Mumbai vs. Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assesse for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 stands allowed

ITA 3334/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income. The Ld.AO issued order under section 148A(d) rejecting assessee’s objections Thereafter notice under section 148 was issued on 25/03/2022. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO issued

Ajay Duggal, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer 72(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5612/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5612/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Ajay Duggal Income Tax Officer, C-138, Vivek Vihar, Vs. Ward-72(1), Anand Vihar, S.O., Aayakar Bhawan, East Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aglpd6006C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

Heena Irfan Bepati, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1184/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are 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.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) ITA Nos.1183 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said ... beyond the period of limitation. 71. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A

Heena Irfan Bepari, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1183/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are 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.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) ITA Nos.1183 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said ... beyond the period of limitation. 71. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A

Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda, Guntur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

charges of Rs.47,733/-. Assessee is a Second-grade School Teacher at MPP School, Achampeta. The case was reopened based on the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, assessee filed his return of income on 26.11.2021 admitting total

Babu Rao Sahukari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 327/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.327/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Babu Rao Sahukari Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) 24-107-54/1 Visakhapatnam – 530020 C/O. Srikar Sai Medical Agencies Andhra Pradesh Gonthivanipalem Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Efnps1341E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Muralidhar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 69C

issued to the assessee, assessee failed to respond to the show-cause notice and hence the Ld. AO proceeded to pass an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2022 and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022 requiring the assessee to file

Nimmagadda Muralidhar, Nidadavole vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Nimmagadda Muralidhar D.No. 3-123 Income Tax Office Samisragudem Village Aayakar Bhavan Near Zph High School Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Nidadavole Mandal Andhra Pradesh West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Anbpn7016M] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr. Ar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

requesting explanation for the cash deposits. Ld. AO issued a show cause notice under section 148A(b) on 28.03.2022. Ld. AO passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 06.04.2022 considering it as a fit case for issuance of notice under section ... terminal days should be excluded for the purpose of computation of seven days period. Further he also submitted that after passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 06.04.2022 for the A.Y.2015-16 wherein the limitation expires

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 820/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 819/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 818/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 817/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed

Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) Shreenath Bungalows Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. Pan : Dvfpk 8773 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nitin Pathak, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

under section 148A(b) dated 20.03.2022 was issued to the assessee. However, no reply was filed. Thereafter, the AO passed a speaking order under section 148A(d) dated 31.03.2022, concluding that income had escaped assessment, and issued notice under section 148. Despite service of notice, no return of income

Chokkalingam Thangavel, Agasteeswaram, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Income Tax Office

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sri Shanmuga Priya, JCIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment under section 148 on the basis of order under section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2022 passed with the approval of the PCIT, Madurai whereas the sanction was to be obtained from the PCCIT, as three years ... return of income, the AO issued a show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Subsequently the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2022 after taking prior approval of PCIT, Madurai-1 and issued a notice under section 148 on 07.04.2022. The assessee filed return

Incometax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Haresh Dayashankar Shrivastav, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 684/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year : 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, Haresh Dayashankar Shrivastav, Vs Ward 3(3)(1), 35, Swetanjali Society, Nr. Ahmedabad Hasubhai Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan : Bbpps 5719 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arsh Shaikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri Arsh Shaikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

alive (the present proceedings are in continuation) and thus, the AO has rightfully amended the details of the addressee in its consequent order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 of the Act. 9. Further, the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of this Court

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 222/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section