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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ndc Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3011/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. Ndc Telecommunications Circle-18(1), India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 4, Central Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacn2219C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Shri B.P. Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th February, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-6,Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That Reassessment Cannot Be Made In The Case Of A Dissolved Company Even For The Year In Which The Company Was Existing.” 3. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St October, 2004 Declaring Loss Of Rs.11,08,72,956/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) On 29Th September, 2006 Determining The Loss At Rs.8,78,79,819/-. Thereafter, Notice U/S 148 Dated 28Th March, 2011 Was Issued To The Assessee. The Assessee, In Response To The Statutory Notices, Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Filed Various Details As Called For. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Determining The Loss At Rs.7,27,32,900/-.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S. Kashish Enterprise, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 256/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Kashish Enterprise Vs. Ito, Poonam Apartment, New Ward – 2, Station Road, Bhuj-Kutch Bhuj. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1.0 The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2.0 The Ld Cit(A)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A)] Erred In Facts As Also In Retaining Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Income Of Rs.55,53,360/-. The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act May Kindly Be Deleted. 3.0 The Honor’S Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or More Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.361/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward 4(1), Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm0703Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 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) 8, Chennai Dated 06.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Also Confirming The Addition Of ₹.3,10,33,094/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act.

For Respondent: Ms. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148