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

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) vs. S. M. Batha Education Trust, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2908/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2908/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito (Exemptions), Ward-1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. S. M. Batha Education Trust, Batha High School, A/P- Panchagani, Taluka: Mahabaleshwar, Satara-412805. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aacts7892J C.O. No.56/Pun/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2908/Pun/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 S. M. Batha Education Trust, S.M. Batha High School, Chessson Road, Panchagani, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, Dist.- Satara-412805. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aacts7892J बनाम / V/S. Ito (Exemptions), Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Smt. Nandita Kanchan Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Bhutada सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Pune Dated 05.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Appeal Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu BhutadaFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1606/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanimi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit 5(1)(1) C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, Vs. Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Mumbai 400 020 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan – Aabci5571L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mrs. Aditi Shroff & Shri Harish Sharma, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-10, Mumbai, Dated 09.10.2017 For A.Y. 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘I.T. Act’), Dated 01.03.2016. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On Facts Of The Case & In Law The Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated U/S. 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 On Wrong Facts & In Unlawful Manner.

For Appellant: Mrs. Aditi Shroff &For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

DCIT, CC-3(2), Cr-3, Mumbai vs. Cms Computers Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4231/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4231/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dcit-Cc-3(2) M/S. Cms Computers Ltd. Room No.1913, 19Th Floor बनाम/ C/O. Kaycee Ind. Compound, Air India Building 70-Lake Road Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Bhandup-(W), Mumbai-78.. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-1758-Z (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2009-10 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-51/It-62/2015-16 Dated 22/03/2017 Qua Certain Relief Provided To The Assessee On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. None Has Appeared For Assessee & No Valid Adjournment Application Is On Record. Left With No Option, We Proceed To Dispose-Off The Same On The Basis Of Material On Record & After Hearing Ld. Departmental

For Appellant: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148