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

Mohd. Akmal, Mau vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 161/VNS/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Mohd Akmal, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Jummana Pura, Kopaganj, Mau- Centre (Nfac), Delhi 225305 Pan: Amupa0225D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 17.06.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 13.02.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “(1) Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Solely For Non-Prosecution, Without Adjudicating On Merits Or Considering The Detailed Grounds & Facts Already On Record & Without Allowing Effective Opportunity Of Hearing, Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. (2) In Any Case, It Is A Law Well Settled That Any Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Deciding The Merits Of The Objections Raised & Evidence Already On Record, Is Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed. (3) Proceedings Under Section 147 Have Neither Been Validly Initiated Nor Concluded In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law, Which Has The Effect Of Rendering The Assessment Order Dated 13.02.2025 As A Whole, Vitiated.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

Shri Vasant Manji Thacker, Bhuj vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 767/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Shri Vasant Manji Thacker Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), 15/16 Halaji Bunglow, College Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Road Opposite Mandvi, Octroi, Ashram Road Navrangpura, Bhuj, Gujrat- 370001 Ahmedabad Gujrat 380009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Abcpt4282E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee, Has Called Into Question Correctness Of Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17, On The Following Grounds: “1. That, The Ld. Pcit Has Wrongly Invoked Provisions Of Section 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Wrongly Held That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. The Ld. Pcit Has Wrongly Passed Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Vasant Manji Thacker

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Peshuram Lilaram Mulchandani, Veraval vs. The Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 245/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 245/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 ] Peshuram Lilaram Mulchandani The Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, Tower Chowk Veraval Ward - 4, Junagadh, Veraval, Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance (Gujarat) 362265 Company Ltd., Sadguru Arcade, Veraval (Gujarat) 362265 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoupm6150R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2026 31/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 11.12.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, Dated 31.03.2022. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1152/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanikamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Income Tax Officer, 100 Basement, Ward 1(2)(2), Abhishek Textile Market, Current Jurisdiction: Vs. Ring Road, Income Tax Officer, Surat Ward 1(2)(1), Surat Pan: Advpa3591N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.09.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Re-Opening Assessment U/S. 147 By Issuing The Notice U/S. 148 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.73,32,672/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment. Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69