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

JCIT (in Situ) CC 2(2), Kolkata vs. Sunrise Timply Co (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITSSA 47/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss)A No.47/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Jcit(In Situ) Cc-2(2), Kolkata Vs Sunrise Timply Co (P) Ltd., H-B, Goenka Niketan, 67/17,Strand Road, Jatindra Mohan Avenue Kolkata-700006 Kolkata-700006 Pan No. :Aagcs 0414 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.K.Himatsingka, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Revenue Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Kolkata-26 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 40 Days. Looking To The Facts Of The Case & Considering The Submissions Of The Ld.Cit-Dr, We Condone The Delay Of 40 Days In The Present Appeal Of The Revenue & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Had Carried On During The Year Business Of Trading Of Timber & Plywood. The Assessee Company Filed E-Return For The A.Y.2010-11 On 25.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2285691 Tax Payable On The Total Income Was Rs.722151/- Including Interest Payable Rs 15873. After Claiming Credit For Total Prepaid Taxes Of Rs.814287 (Advance Tax Rs.500000 Plus Tds 314287) Rs 92136

For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Bhagwan Das Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1254/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1254/Pat/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Vs Bhagwan Das Agarwal, Kolkata 21, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Afjpa 9084 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri Devesh Poddar, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. A Perusal Of The Facts Of The Present Case Shows That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 24.03.2025 Has Been Received In The Office Of Pr.Cit, Central-2, Kolkata On 24.03.2025. The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Expired On 23.05.2025 & The Appeal Has Been Filed On 09.06.2025. Thus, There Is A Delay Of 21 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed A Condonation Application Stating Therein As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 3Section 68

Naraseepuram Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Non Corp Ward 4(1), Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1697/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1696 & 1697/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2020-21 M/S. Naraseepuram Paccs, The Income Tax Officer, Poondi Road, Narasipuram B.O, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Narasipuram, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 109. Pan: Aaaan 9388H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sudhakar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Justified In Confirming The Ao’S Action In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Naraseepuram Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Non Corp Ward 4(1), Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1696/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1696 & 1697/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2020-21 M/S. Naraseepuram Paccs, The Income Tax Officer, Poondi Road, Narasipuram B.O, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Narasipuram, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 109. Pan: Aaaan 9388H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sudhakar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Justified In Confirming The Ao’S Action In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)