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

Gahoi Vaishya Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Gahoi Vaishya Kalyan Samiti, Vs Income Tax Officer 128/398 ‘K’ Block, Kidwai (Exemption), “Aayakar Bhawan” Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208011 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001 Pan: Aabtg5990Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. U.S. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Shaurya Shashwat Shukla, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A), Vide His Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.07.2025, Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 For The Assessment Year 2015-16, On 28.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), (Nfac) Erred In Law In Upholding The Issuing Notice By Ao Under Section 148 & In Making Assessment Without Disposing By Reasoned Order Of Our Objections To The Reopening Of The Case. 2. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), (Nfac) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,00,16, 602/- Made By Ao For The Reason That This Is Not Disclosed In Schedule-I Of Itr Ignoring The Fact That Schedule-I Of Itr Is Not Applicable To The Amount Of Deemed Application Under Clause (2) Of Explanation To Section 11(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 1 A.Y. 2015-16 Gahoi Vaishya Kalyan Samiti 3. Because The Notice Of Demand & Assessment Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify Or Withdraw Any Ground Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing & Until Disposal Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. U.S. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Shaurya Shashwat Shukla, CIT DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shree Jyotiriling Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Jyotirling Gramin Bigar Sheti Ito, Ward – 3, Sangli Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Opp. Palus Sahakari Bank M Palus Vs. Post. Palus Sangli-416310 Pan : Aagas1359F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

Pegasus Event and Convention Services, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-7, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Pegasus Event & Convention Services, Assistant Commissioner Services E 1/5 Phase Ii, Cibercity, Of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Haveli, Pune H.O., Pune-411001 Vs. Pune Pan : Aaifp8920C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.11.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.22,93,281/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For Under-Reporting Of Income Vide His Order Dated 19.08.2025. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Did Not Furnish Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For Ay 2020-21. Based On The Information Flagged On Insight Portal By The Directorate Of Income Tax (Systems), Cbdt, It Was Found That The Substantial Income Of The Assessee Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment For The Ay 2020-21. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Following The Mandated Procedure In Law. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee With The Prior Approval Of The Specified Authority. In Response To 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 274

Panchwadkar Shrihari Purshottam (HUF), Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2929/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2929/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Panchwadkar Shriram Purshottam (Huf), Ito, Ward –2, 2085, Ashirvad, Hardias Ves, Pandharpur, Pandharpur Solapur-413304 Vs. Pan : Aalhp4822N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik B. Sandbhor Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Wherein He Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.16,15,028/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Huf Owing Rural Agricultural Land. Based On The Information Flagged On Insight Portal, It Was Found That The Assessee Had Earned Interest Income Of Rs.31,96,652/- During The Ay 2017-18, However, No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee For The Relevant Ay. The Case Of The Assessee Was Thus Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Following The Mandated Provisions Of Law. Since, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Various Notices Issued By The Ld. Ao During The Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Completed The Assessment Ex-Parte By Making Addition Of Rs.31,96,652/- As Income From Other Sources. Simultaneously, The Ld. Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act. As There Was 2

For Appellant: Shri Pratik B. SandbhorFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Pratibha and Pratik Associates, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2723/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2677 & 2723/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pratibha & Pratik Associates, Income Tax Officer, 247/18 E Prithviprasad, Ward – 2(1), Kolhapur Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416003 Vs. Pan : Aaofp8008R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.10.2025 & 13.10.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ay”) 2015-16. In Ita No. 2677/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Quantum Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Whereas Ita No. 2723/Pun/2025 Is Filed Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271)1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”). For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That For Ay 2015-16, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income. Based On The Information Available With The Department, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Made Transactions Of Tds Return Payment To Contractor (Section 194C) Of Rs.4,29,67,200/- During Ay 2015-16 Which Has Not Been Reported Due To Non-Filing Of Return By The Assessee. The Case Of The Assessee Was Thus

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271