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

Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Office, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1487/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1486 & 1487/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 398, D Ward, Rankala Vesh Kolhapur- 416012. Pan : Ajtpj4233E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte : Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals As Per Respective Grounds Of Appeal Common Order. 3. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals.

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69

Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1486/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1486 & 1487/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 398, D Ward, Rankala Vesh Kolhapur- 416012. Pan : Ajtpj4233E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte : Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals As Per Respective Grounds Of Appeal Common Order. 3. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals.

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69

DCIT CC1(4) Kolkkata, Kolkata vs. Dadu Taxtile LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1811/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata…..……………… ……………...……….……….……Appellant Vs. Dadu Textile Llp……………......………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 16 Tara Chand Dutta Street, Near Mohammed Ali Park, Kol-700073. [Pan: Aamfd0909M] Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A