“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)

Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1946/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Shafiq Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafiq Ahmed, Dy. Cit Circle-41(1)(1), Flat No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Building Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. No. 1 Om Sai Ekta (Sra), (East), Society, Cts No. 216, Gillbert Mumbai-400051. Hill Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aowpa 3264 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hasan Khan, Virtually Present

Section 148Section 148A

assessee. Consequently, an order response was furnished by the assessee. Consequently, an order response was furnished by the assessee. Consequently, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed, and a fresh notice under Section under Section 148A(d) was passed, and a fresh notice under Section under Section 148A(d

Piyush Kumar Sarda, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.542/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Piyush Kumar Sarda Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 44(2) 3/1B, Sir Hari Ram Goenka Street, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Pan No. : Atbps 4944 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 3

Petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice. 10. We also found in the said guidelines a provision that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act shall be sent to assessee along with the approval of the specified authority for such order under Section 148A(d

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

reply has been furnished by the assessee in response to show-cause u/s 148A(b), the period of limitation for passing the order under section 148A(d) expires on 30th May, i.e, one month from the end of the month allowed to the assessee to furnish his reply. Since ... then Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 21. Admittedly, in this case, the approval/sanction for order under section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal

Green Maiden A 2013, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri Hardik Nirmal/ MsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 153Section 61Section 63

under section 148A(b) of the Act. After considering the response of the assessee and necessary approval from the competent authority, an order under section 148A(d) was passed, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30/03/2023. In response to the notice issued under section

Amrit Pal Singh Chadha, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2794/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2794/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Amrit Pal Singh, Vs Acit, 4410, Dlf, Phase-Iv, Central Circle-19, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpc3215P Assessee By: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073779465(1) Dated 27.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 13ASection 147Section 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 4 Amrit Pal Singh to accompany a notice under Section 148 of the Act). The said ... 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

Subbiah Subramani Venkatesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1316/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1316/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Subbiah Subramani Venkatesh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 157, New No. 14, Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Sanjeevarayan Koil Street, West Chennai. Mambalam, Chennai 600 021. [Pan:Avups4151M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

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

dismissing the appeal in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts emanating from record are that the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was passed on 31.03.2022 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued

Sohag Dilip Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chambers

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

filed the return of income, the AO issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. After passing the order under section 148A(d), the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued

Parth Construction, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-41(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

case of One World Group of the cases on 06.11.2019 issued a notice under section 148A(b) and subsequently passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act. It is alleged that the assessee is a beneficiary of the bogus accommodation entries to the tune

Panimayam Jesuraja, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1318/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1317 & 1318/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Panimayam Jesuraja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55, Kallusanthu Aranthangi, Circle 2(1), Radhanallur B.O., Trichy/Tanjore. Pudukottai 614 616. [Pan:Auppj9253R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit & Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.03.2025 & 19.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT &

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

return of income on 20.08.2021 declaring total income of ₹.2,09,770/-. After following due procedure, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 29.06.2022 and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.06.2022, against which, the assessee did not file return

Panimayam Jesuraja, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1317/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT &

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

assessee under section 148A(b) of the Act requesting explanation for the cash deposits. Considering the assessee’s reply, Ld. AO passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 07.04.2022 considering it as a fit case for issuance of notice under section ... contain any manual signature or digital signature, it is not valid in law. 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 07.04.2022 for the A.Y.2015-16 wherein the limitation expires

Chandan Singh, Palamau vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Daltonganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.85/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chandan Singh…………………...................…...........................……….……Appellant S/O Rajmuni Singh, Navatand, Naudiha Bazar, Chhatarpur, Palamau, Jharkhand-822101. [Pan: Dvyps5881K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(5), Daltonganj…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 09, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 148Section 148ASection 206CSection 250

should be submitted on or before 29.03.2023; however, the e- reply was showing already closed on 26.03.2023 and finally on 31.03.2023 an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the respondent No.2. 7. To decide the lis involved in the instant application it is necessary

Essel Housing Projects Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-20, Delhi

ITA 1900/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

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

Essel Housing Projects Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-20, Delhi

ITA 1899/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Anurag Pandey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre

ITA 3924/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT

Ramachandran Annapoorni, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

sustainable both on facts and in law. 6. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the JAO would completely defy the prescription of law / procedure in relation thereto and hence ought to have appreciated that

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 112Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 54FSection 69A

India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). It was also not brought to our notice that the Ld. AO has passed any order under section 148A(d) of the Act as per the new provisions amended by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Considering the above facts and circumstances

Gianchand Asodomal Rohera, Pune vs. Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 6862/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 69C

filed response on ITBA portal on or before 14.03.2022. The assessee filed his reply on 16.03.2022. The AO passed order under section 148A(d) of 31.03.2022 as 11.22 PM (as per digital signature). However, notice under section 148 was issued only on 01.04.2022, though 3 Gianchand Asodomal Rohera date

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1366/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

However, the assessee did not respond to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 23/05/2022. Accordingly, the AO passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 27/07/2022, declaring that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. On the very same