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

Shri. Bakul Kunverji Rajal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7623/MUM/2019[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7622/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7623/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1990-91) Shri Bakul Kunverji Rajal बिधम/ Acit, Cc-3(3) 116, Mulji Devsi Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Room Vs. Ground Floor, New Chinch No. 401, M. K. Road, Bunder Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400009. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr4005M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh Shah Revenue By: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Assessee Had Preferred The Aforesaid Captioned Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Dated 13.09.2019 For Ay. 1989-90 & 1990-91. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common, They Are Being Taken Up Together. 2. The First Ground Of The Appeal Has Not Been Pressed. Accordingly Ground No.1 Of The Appeals For Ays 1989-90 & 1990-91 Is Dismissed. 3. The Next Two Grounds Of Appeal In All The Four (4) Appeals Are Against The Addition/S Made By The Ao In The Assessment Orders Impugned Before Us, Which Are Summarized Below: -

For Appellant: Shri Haresh ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245H

Shri. Bakul Kunverji Rajal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7622/MUM/2019[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7622/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7623/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1990-91) Shri Bakul Kunverji Rajal बिधम/ Acit, Cc-3(3) 116, Mulji Devsi Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Room Vs. Ground Floor, New Chinch No. 401, M. K. Road, Bunder Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400009. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr4005M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh Shah Revenue By: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Assessee Had Preferred The Aforesaid Captioned Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Dated 13.09.2019 For Ay. 1989-90 & 1990-91. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common, They Are Being Taken Up Together. 2. The First Ground Of The Appeal Has Not Been Pressed. Accordingly Ground No.1 Of The Appeals For Ays 1989-90 & 1990-91 Is Dismissed. 3. The Next Two Grounds Of Appeal In All The Four (4) Appeals Are Against The Addition/S Made By The Ao In The Assessment Orders Impugned Before Us, Which Are Summarized Below: -

For Appellant: Shri Haresh ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245H

M/S. Symphony, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1965/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Symphony बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(2) Skyline Wealth Space Bld, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Vs. First Floor, Skyline Oasis Aayakar Bhavan, Compound Premier Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Vidyavihar (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgf8562C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 23.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. By Raising The Ground No. 1 To 4, The Assessee Has Challenged The Legality/Validity Of The Reopening Of Assessment For Ay. 2012-13. Ground No. 1 To 4 Is As Under: - “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & Completing The Assessment U/S 147. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 On The Basis Of Information On Record & Without Any New Information.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148