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

Ravikumar Nath (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06) Ravikumar Nath (Huf) बिधम/ Ito-29(3)(1) 204/C-3, Veena Nagar, 305, C-10, Pratykshkar Vs. Mulund West-400080. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr0075L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashwin Chhag Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 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)-40, Mumbai Dated 06.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Assessment In This Case Has Been Re-Opened After Four (4) Years But Within Six (6) Years. However, The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao Having Re-Opened The Assessment, Not Giving Reasons Recorded For Reopening As Mandated By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In G.Ku Drive Shaft (2003) 259 Itr 19 (Sc), As Well As The Ld. Cit(A)’S Actions Of Ignoring The Legal Issue Raised Before Him That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Was Issued Without Sanction Of The Competent Authority U/S 151 Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar Despite This Tribunal Directing The Department Representative (Dr) To Produce The Records Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune vs. Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure, Pune

ITA 1837/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1836 /Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. Vs Cst No.2254/1, Modi Baug, Commercial Building, Ganesh Khind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aaffr 9455 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.16/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1836/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, The Assistant Commissioner Of Cts No.2254, 1 Modibaug, Vs Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. Commercial Complex Building, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aaffr 9455 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 1837/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. Vs Office No.8 & 9, Pradeep Chambers, S.No.813, Bhan Darker Road, Maharashtra – 411004. Pan: Aaffr 9455 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri M.Jasnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Set Of Three Appeals Consisting Two Appeals By The Revenue & Cross Objection Therein By The Assessee For A.Y. 2010-11 & Remaining Appeal By The Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 Are Directed Against The Separate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune vs. Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructture, Pune

ITA 1836/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1836 /Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. Vs Cst No.2254/1, Modi Baug, Commercial Building, Ganesh Khind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aaffr 9455 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.16/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1836/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, The Assistant Commissioner Of Cts No.2254, 1 Modibaug, Vs Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. Commercial Complex Building, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aaffr 9455 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 1837/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. Vs Office No.8 & 9, Pradeep Chambers, S.No.813, Bhan Darker Road, Maharashtra – 411004. Pan: Aaffr 9455 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri M.Jasnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Set Of Three Appeals Consisting Two Appeals By The Revenue & Cross Objection Therein By The Assessee For A.Y. 2010-11 & Remaining Appeal By The Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 Are Directed Against The Separate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80I

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A