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

Iyergopal Ashokkumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO-Che-W-(61)(11), Coimbatoe

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

ITA 182/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.182/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Iyergopal Ashokkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 658, P.N. Palayam Road, Puliyakulam, Che-W-61(11), Coimbatore 641 045. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ahqpa2689G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre) [Nfac], Delhi Dated 14.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Against Which, The Ld. Dr Has Not 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 4Section 44A

Mr. Ramesh Manchhalal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 507/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Ramesh Manchhalal Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1) Purohit, 202, 2Nd Floor, 72 Mg Mahimtura Marg, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Khumbharwada,3Rdlane, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai-400004 Pan/Gir No. : Aagpr9146Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Ground Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filling The Appeal Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee. Ramesh Manchhalal Purohit, Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.3,56,590/-And The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Further The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer(A.O) Made Additions In Respect Of Interest Income Of Rs. 55,312/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.2,95,410/- & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Determining The Assessed Income Of Rs.7,07,310/-. Subsequently The Ao Has Received Information From The Ito (Inv), Thane In Respect Of Transactions By The Assessee With M/S Pramod Steel Company Of Rs. 10 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Jayashree Thakur.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

ACIT Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Watermark Capital Ltd.[Previously, Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd], Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Circle-3(3)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Watermark Capital Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Watermark Financial Road, Mumbai-400020. Consultants Ltd.) 1010, Maker Chambers- V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3474H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anand Kumar Tibrewal Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 20.11.2019 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Has Not Preferred An Appeal/Cross Objection Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Since It Has Got Relief On Merits In Respect Of Grounds Raised By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). According To The Ld. Ar, Therefore, The Assessee Has Preferred An Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax Tribunal Rule, 1963 Wherein It Has Raised A Legal Issue Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Dcit Circle-3(3) To Have Issued Notice Dated 02.09.2014 U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Rules”). & Thereafter Erred In Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 115JSection 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148