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

Kunal Ashok Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6164/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Kunal Ashok Agarwal Income Tax Officer-16(2)(1) 13, C-1, Matru Ashish Matrum Mandir Vs. 39, Neapeansea Road Mumbai 400007 Mumbai 400036 Pan – Afqpa1873G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sashank Dundu Respondent By: Shri Rajore Satishchandra Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-27, Mumbai Dated 19.08.2014 & It Relates To A.Y. 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued U/S. 148 & The Order Passed In Pursuance To The U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 & While Doing So He Amongst Others Failed To Appreciate: A. That There Was No Income Chargeable To Tax Which Had Escaped Assessment; B. That The Reasons Stated For Reopening Of Assessment Were Not Having Any Relation To The Facts On Record For The Relevant Previous Year; C. That Merely On The Deposition Of Shri Mukesh Choksi On 25.11.2009, No Adverse Inference Could Be Drawn Against The Appellant. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Addition Of The Consideration Paid For Purchase Of Shares Was Wrongly Made Under The Head 'Income

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Rajore Satishchandra
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148

K.V.Vijayaraghavan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 456/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.456/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 Shri K.V. Vijayaraghavan, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Vs. Income Tax, Advocate, # 384 (Old No. 196), Company Circle I(1), Lloyds Road, Chennai 600 086. Chennai. [Pan:Aclpv6440Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2018 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) I, Chennai Dated 22.11.2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹.7,34,750/- Made As “Unexplained Investment” Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69