Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.280

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 280 (Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 280 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 148 is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 35,022 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 148

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

Judgments on Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. M B Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 884/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Jagadish(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Mumbai M B Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 126, Aayakar Bhawan, V 61, Prabha Mandir, Opp. Veer Savarkar Mumbai – 400020. S Road, Prabhadevi So, Mumbai – 400025 [Pan: Aadcm2011K] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Dale Of Institution Of Appeal 28.01.2026 Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)Dated 03.11.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That As Per Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (Sfio) Report, Most Of The Entities/Individuals Booked Bogus Speculative & Non Speculative Gain & Losses By Trading On The Nsel Platform & Assessee Is Also One Of The Beneficiaries Of Such Scam. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Overlooking The Fact That The Statement Of One Of The Brokers Wherein It Is Clearly Stated That "No Physical Delivery Of Goods Took Place At Any Time Whatsoever In All Trades Executed On Nsel. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Considering The Fact That The Assessee Had Earned Profit Of Rs. 1,50,460/- On Account Of Client Code Modification

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Darshita Sureshkumar Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Jagadish(Physicalhearing) Darshita Sureshkumar Chauhan Ito, Ward – 42(1)(2), Mumbai A-12 Sahyadri Apt. L T Road, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Borivali West,Mumbai– 400092. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Artpc6384R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Dale Of Institution Of Appeal 21.05.2026 Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)Dated 04.04.2026 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: A. Reopening 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Which Is Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction, Void Ab Initio & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice Issued U/S 148 & Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Despite The Fact That The Reopening Was Based On Incorrect Facts, Borrowed Satisfaction & Complete Non- Application Of Mind. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessing Officer Merely Relied Upon Information Uploaded On The Insight Portal / Rms Information & Investigation Wing Report Without Carrying Out Any Independent Enquiry Or Verification As Specifically Required In The Dissemination Note. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Despite The Fact That No Material Whatsoever Was Supplied Along With Notice U/S 148A(B), Including Alleged Incriminating Statements, Seized Material, Whatsapp Darshita Sureshkumar Chauhan

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

Amey Madhav Baitule, India vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

ITA 8671/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Amey Madhav Baitule Ito, Ward – 3(1), Kalyan 01 Plot No. Rm 25, Kasturi Shilp, Vs Rani Mansion, Kalyan, Kalyan- Milap Nagar, Midc Residential Dombivali, Maharashtra – 421301. Zone, Dombivali, Thane, Maharashtra – 421203. [Pan: Bbupb5254K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjiv Brahme, Ca Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfacdated 28.10.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit (Appeal) Has Failed To Consider The Legal Point Raised By The Appellant That Notice U/S.148 Was Bad-In-Law & Has Been Done Mechanically. 2. The Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Ignoring Our Point With Regards To Approval By Prcit. 3. The Cit (Appeal) Has Failed To Consider The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice U/S 148 Is Bad In Law Since The Assessing Officer Has Not Received Any Fresh Material & He Had Earlier Issued Notice For Ay 2019-20, Which He Had Dropped 4. The Notice U/S 148 Is Bad In Law As The Approval Was Given By Prcit, Mechanically. Prcit-1 Has Given Earlier Approval For Previous Assessment Year 2019-20 & After Being Pointing Out The Flaws, The Assessing Officer Amey Madhav Baitule

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69