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

S 224 Kattanachampatty Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Namakkal vs. ITO, Namakkal

ITA 2323/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2323/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 S 244 Kattanachampatty Primary V. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Society, Ward –2 No.67C/3 Vallalar Kovil Backside, Namakkal. Kattukottai, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Ablas8536L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 06.01.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Cit (A) / Nfac In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of Case. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) / Nfac Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 184 Days In Filing The Appeal, Although The Assessee Had Explained In The Petition The Reason For The Delay.

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 139Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

Tyspl 109 V Kalathur Primary Agricultural Co-Op, Perambalur vs. ITO, Perambalur

ITA 2298/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2298/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Tyspl 109 V Kalathur Primary V. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ward-1, Limited, Perambalur. V Kalathur Post, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu-621 117. [Pan: Aacat5790P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 21.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2019-20. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dismissing The Appeal Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit (A) Nfac Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Department On Jurisdiction & Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 119(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80P

Mani Duraisamy, Redhills vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faceless, Chennai

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

ITA 2955/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mani Duraisamy, Vs. The Cit(Appeals), No.36, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Faceless, Chennai, Redhills, Chennai, 600034. Tamil Nadu-600052. [Pan: Akqpm4548P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Abhinaya, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Addition Of ₹46,65,300/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 3. I Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Material Available On Record. The Assessee Is An Individual Who Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Case Of The Assessee Was Sought To Be Re-Opened Under Section 147 Of The Income

For Appellant: Mr. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N. Abhinaya, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

Amit Pahuja, Indore vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 868/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeamit Pahuja Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Thane 6 Roopam Nagar, Near Manik Office Of Dcit, Ashar It Park, 6Th Bagh Over Bridge, Indore, Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Madhya Pradesh-452013 Industrial Estate, Thane-400604 Pan: Atspp4469M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jaideep Jain Adv. & Shri Ashish Goyal Adv. (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2019-20, Date Of Order 16.01.2026. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 13.01.2025. 2 Amit Pahuja 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Additional Grounds Which Are As Below: “The Following May Kindly Be Admitted As Additional Grounds: - 3. That, The Proceeding Initiated By Ld.Ao U/S 148 Are Illegal, Invalid, Without Jurisdiction, Void-Ab-Initio, Non Est, Barred By Limitation. 4. That, The Reopening Of Assessment Beyond Three Years Is Bad In Law, As The Conditions Prescribed Under Section 149(1)(B) Have Not Been Satisfied. 5. That, The Approval Was Taken From Pr. Cit Instead Of Pr. Ccit/Ccit As Mandated Under Section 151 In Case Notice U/S 148 Issued Beyond 3 Years.”

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Jain Adv. & Shri Ashish Goyal Adv. (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 80G