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

Jaya Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 506/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 505 & 506/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11& 2013-14 Smt. Jaya Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 201-207, H 3, Arihant Sloka, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Adppj7765B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, Dated 26.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & Ld. Pcit- 3, Chennai Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Delayed By 79 Days For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 275 Days For The Assessment Year 2013-14. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit For Both The Assessment Years Explaining Detailed Reasons For The Delay, The Ld.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Jaya Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 505 & 506/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11& 2013-14 Smt. Jaya Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 201-207, H 3, Arihant Sloka, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Adppj7765B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, Dated 26.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & Ld. Pcit- 3, Chennai Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Delayed By 79 Days For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 275 Days For The Assessment Year 2013-14. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit For Both The Assessment Years Explaining Detailed Reasons For The Delay, The Ld.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

G.P.Savithri, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. G.P. Savithri, The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 4, New No. 7, Strotten Vs. Non Corporate Ward 6(3) Muthiah Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 6. Chennai 600 079. [Pan:Bdips8011B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. Hemalatha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 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) 5, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Is Wrong, Illegal & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case. 2.1 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Concluding That Transfer Of The Property Took Place This Year; When A Writ Petition Challenging That Is Pending Before The High Court.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Hemalatha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai vs. Muktha Shantiniketan Properties, Chennai

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

ITA 2818/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2818/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Muktha Shantiniketan Properties, New No. 122, 1St Floor, Broadway, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 11, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Building, Tower Ii, 16 Chennai 600 108. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aalfm9626R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Facts, Are In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Declaring Total Income At ₹.97,97,71,660/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 148

Iris Engineering Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 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) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)