“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)

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee had obtained accommodation entries, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and thereafter passed an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022, followed by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The reassessment was ultimately completed on 06.05.2023. 8.1 On further ... Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 9.9 In the present case, it is undisputed that both the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 were issued after obtaining approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, as evident from

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Shivram S Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

ITA 5653/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

above have been raised in the writ petition, the learned Advocate for Petitioner has limited his challenge to the point that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 was time barred in view of the first proviso to substituted Section 149 as interpreted ... OnLine Del 481 to contend that on identical facts and consistent with the interpretation of the Petitioner in the instant case, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were quashed. It is urged that the remainder period as per the ratio of the decision in Rajeev Bansal

Shivram S Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 5652/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

Jvh Technologies Private Limited, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 395/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshjvh Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Shop No. A28, V. S. Ward-2(1)(1), Plaza, Sector-3A, Avas Agra Vikas Colony, Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcj3746N Assessee By : Shri Rohit Dua, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Dua, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 40A(3)

Ashish Agarwal, show-cause notice was issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening and an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30.07.2022. Thereafter, final notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers, Mumbai

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) was discussed and held that after 01.04.2021 the specified authority for the approval for passing of order under section 148A(d) would be the Pr. CCIT or Pr. Director General of Income Tax and not the Pr. CIT. 6. To substantiate the consequential effect ... 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

Ramanaikkan Pa Coop Bank Ltd. S-202, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3551/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao&

For Appellant: Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

note that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and order under section 148A(d) of the Act both dated 11.04.2022. As per para 4.3 of the assessment order, the assessee filed his return of income under section

Babasaheb Sahebarav Jagdale, Masanarwadi Lingali Daund vs. Assessing Officer Ward 14(5), Aayakar Sadan Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park Gultekdi

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

ITA 2283/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: CIT(A) as per clause (b) Sec 246A of the IT Act, 1961. The Learned CIT(A) further erred to hold that Appellant should have filed Appeal to ITAT.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 146ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

application of his own. e. Copy of the approval given by the prescribed authority under section 151A was not enclosed along with order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148, which is in violation of CBDT guidelines and various judicial pronouncement and accordingly the same should be quashed

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1855/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1855/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siva Charan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 04/09/2025 & 08/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Chandini Duvvuri Vs. Ito (Int. Taxn) Act”), Dated 15/05/2024 & 27/05/2025 For Ay 2016-17 & Ay 2017- 18, Respectively. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 In Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Siva Charan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69

dated 22/02/2023 was issued by the ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Also, the JAO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 16/03/2023. Thereafter, the ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, i.e., JAO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023 ... Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 01.04.2022, which was followed by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 by the very same A.O. and further issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1842/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siva Charan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Dagumati Swathi, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1638/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 13Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151A

clause (b) of section 148A of the Act. Thereafter, the ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30/07/2022. Also, notice under section 148 of 3 ITO VS DAGUMATI SWATHI the Act, dated 30/07/2022 was issued ... r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/04/2023 based on her two fold contentions, viz., (i) that both the impugned order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30/07/2022 and notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/07/2022 issued by the ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1545/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

afforded under section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 28/03/2023, therefore, the AO based on the information available on record passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 11/04/2023. Further, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) Ankit

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1544/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

Satya Kour, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 4Section 69A

Ward 17(1), Hyderabad, issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, which was followed by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 by the very same A.O. Since the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yashnu

Ramesh Babu Bejjala, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

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

ITA 1010/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 348Section 44ASection 63A

filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2015-16, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. An order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/04/2022 was passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Kothagudem, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Thereafter, the JAO issued notice ... submitted that the time spent from the issuance of notice under section 148A(b) of the Act upto the passing of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of “fifth proviso” and “sixth proviso” cannot be excluded for reckoning the limitation period for issuance of notice

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. - India Branch (Amalgamated With Natwest Markets Plc - India Branch), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., International Taxation - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1325/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1325/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) The Royal Bank Of Scotland Vs Dcit, International Taxation- N.V.-India Branch(Amalgamated 2(1), Kolkata With Natwest Markets Plc-India Branch) 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-16 Pan No. :Aacca 6818 K

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued ... Respondents are directed to make available to Petitioner copy of the approval form as well as the approval accorded for issuance of order under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act within one week from this order being uploaded.” 9. Similarly, in the case of Haresh Kumar Dungarmal

Nevin H. Bharwani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6318/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnevin H. Bharwani, 5Th Floor, Noor-E-Rehmat, 50 B.J. Road, Bandra West, Mumbai ............... Appellant Pan : Alrpb8270H V/S Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward – 1(2)(1), Room No.530D, 5Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Asif Karmali Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69A

failed to appreciate that the Income tax Officer (International tax) 1(2) - 1, Mumbai ("the J.A.O.") erred in - - passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) dated 21st March 2024; - and issuing notice under section ... year under consideration. Accordingly, on the basis of the information, proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated, and an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed, and a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2024. In response to the notice issued

Sudhir Motiram Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6190/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsudhir Motiram Patil C/O Hukumchand Jain, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 ............... Appellant Pan: Avvpp1813G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 234A

weeks in terms of provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. 6. Rejecting the objections filed by the assessee, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26/07/2022 declaring that it is a fit case 4 for issuance of notice under section ... provides that no such approval shall be required where the AO, with the prior approval of the Specified Authority, has passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act. Further, Explanation 3 clarifies that the Specified Authority for the purpose of section 148 shall be the Specified Authority

Akshay Deepak Talim, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5130/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Kulkarnai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

case to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act by passing an order. Further, the requirement of passing an order under section 148A(d) of the Act has not been laid down under the statute as an empty formality, and the AO has to apply its mind ... also forms part of the paper book from pages 118-122. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the AO, while passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, completely disregarded the first cheque issued by the PNB Housing Finance Ltd to the builder, amounting to Rs.1

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5020/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

account of limitation, as the amount was less than Rs. 50 lacs. [Para 22] However, the Assessing Officer while passing the order under section 148A(d) in a wholly mechanical manner rejected the plea of the assessee and proceeded to issue notice under section 148. Whereafter proceedings were sought ... account of limitation, as the amount was less than Rs. 50 lacs. [Para 22] However, the Assessing Officer while passing the order under section 148A(d) in a wholly mechanical manner rejected the plea of the assessee and proceeded to issue notice under section 148. Whereafter proceedings were sought