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

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1270/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1270/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Spencer Plaza, 5Th Floor, 769, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacr5136R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 31.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. Besides Raising Various Grounds, The Assessee Mainly Challenged The Exparte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard & Without Addressing The Grounds Of Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4278/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4278/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4279/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Central Circle 3(2)(2) National Bank For Rural Agriculture & बिाम Mumbai Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex / Vs. Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No.Aaact-4020-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry – Ld. Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri Narendra Jangpangi – Ld. Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds. However, It Is Admitted Position That Issues Are Identical In Both The Years & Adjudication In Any One Year Shall Equally Apply To Other Year Also. 2. The Appeal For Ay 2008-09 Arises Out Of Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry – Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Jangpangi – Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Harish Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5902/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Harish Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O Raman Sharma, Advocate, Ward-1(3), 117, Ff, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Bcepk4087J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th February, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Information Was Obtained By The Ao As Per Air Information That The Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.17,57,500/- In The Savings Bank Account During F.Y. 2009-10. To Verify The Genuineness Of The Transaction, Verification Letters Dated 29Th April, 2016 & 20Th January, 2017 Were Issued To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Filer. Since There Was No Compliance To The Notice Issued By The Ao, He Reopened The Assessment Invoking The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act After Obtaining Necessary Approval U/S 151 From The Appropriate Authority & Statutory Notice U/S 148 Dated 24Th March, 2017 Was Issued To The Assessee On His Last Known Address. There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee Despite Number Of Opportunities Granted. Only On 26Th May, 2017 The Assessee Appeared & Sought Adjournment Which Was Duly Granted By The Ao. Since There Was Non-Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee Thereafter, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.17,57,500/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 In The Ex Parte Order Passed By Him. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee Filed An Application Under Rule 46A For Admission Of Certain Additional Evidence. However, The Ld.Cit(A) Rejected The Additional Evidences Filed Before Him & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 46ASection 69