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

Kumaragiri Steels Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 1501/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1501/Chny/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Kumaragiri Steels Ltd. Vs The Dcit, Company Circle-Ii(4) 235, Mint Street, Park Town, Chennai Chennai-600003 Pan No. : Aaack 6083 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Chennai Dated 28.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006- 2007. 2. As Agreed By Both The Parties, First Of All, We Heard The Arguments Of Both The Sides On Ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, Which Read As Under :- 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Chennai-600034 Dated 28.03.2014 In I.T.A No.426/2013-14 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S.147 Of The Act & Erred Consequently In Confirming The Re-Assessment Framed U/S.143(3) R/W Section 147 Of The Act Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit(Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Order Of Re- Assessment Under Consideration Was Passed Out Of Time, Invalid, Passed Without Jurisdiction & Not Sustainable Both On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1676/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

Mr. Santokumar Gograj Adukia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 990/MUM/2021[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 990/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Santosh Kumar Gograj बिधम/ Pcit-17 Room No.120, 1St Floor, Adukia Vs. B-401 Twin Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Marve Road, Opp. Marve 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nsg. Home,Malad- Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapa7459F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shailesh Bandi Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 17 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Pr. C.I.T, Mumbai-17, Has Grossly Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 Of The I.T Act, Without Providing An Opportunity Of Personal Hearing, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69ASection 69C