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

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Futura Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 661/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.661/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dcit-1(1)(2) M/S. Futura Infraprojects Ltd. 3Rd 579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 303, Floor, Rajendra Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Chambers, 19, Nanabhai Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf6879R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1."On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Erred Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 9.44% Of The Total Alleged Bogus Purchases From Hawala Dealers Added By The A.O By Ignoring The Fact That The Assesses Could Not Produce The Parties From Whom Purchases Were Made Thereby Failed To Discharge The Primary- A.Y.2010-11 Onus To Establish Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Purchase Transaction During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings" 2. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dit(Inv) & Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchase Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods" 3. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering That The Hawala Dealers Have Admitted On Oath Before The Sales Tax Authorities That They Have Not Sold Any Material To Anybody".”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 30

Manohar Lal Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-I, Jaipur

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

ITA 80/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 80/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. P/O- M/S Mahalaxmi Abhushan Circle-1, Bhandar, 165, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. Chhoti Chopar, Jaipur. Pan No.: Aanpa 6995 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 02/08/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A), Faceless Appeal Centre Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal As Belated/Delayed Appeal Without Considering The Reply & Evidences Filed By The Assessee. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Findings Of Ld. Ao In Passing The Order U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law As 2

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 148

Jalpesh Vinay Kumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 174/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.174/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.172/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.173/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jalpesh Vinay Kumar Shah Ito – 23(2)(3), 124, 1St Floor 1401, Sugee Heights बिाम/ Dwarkesh Nagar Chs Ltd. Matru Mandir Vs. Nahur Road, Mulund (West) Tardev Road Mumbai-400 080 Mumbai-400 007 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaops-0207-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6564/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6565/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6566/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito Ward – 26(1)(7), Jalpesh Vinay Kumar Shah Room No. 329, 3Rd Floor 1401, Sugee Heights बिाम/ Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Dwarkesh Nagar Chs Ltd. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex (East) Nahur Road, Mulund (West) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 080 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaops-0207-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Aditya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148