Section 148A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.281

Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 281 (Procedure before issuance of notice under section 280) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 281 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 148A is Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46), cited in 713 of the 3,543 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 148A

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court
713
citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT
464 ITR 430 · 2024 · High Court
288
citing judgments
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO
156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · High Court
213
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

Varghese v. ITO, Ernakulum
4 SCC 173 · 1981 · Reported
164
citing judgments

Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act are legally binding on the revenue authorities in their administration and implementation. This binding character applies even if the circulars depart from the correct interpretation of the law and cannot be ignored to the prejudice of the assessee.

Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey
132 Taxmann 373 · 2003 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments
(P.) Ltd. v. ITO
221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu
263 ITR 658 · 2003 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

Judgments on Section 148A

Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Junagadh-Una vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 881/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Mandali Limited, Vs. Baudin College Road, Village-Bandharda, Taluka-Una, Junagadh, Gujarat-362565 Junagadh, Gujarat-362565, "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagas5227E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019- 20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 09.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, On 05.03.2024. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Reopening The Assessment Under 148 Of The Act. The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Not Justified. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Reopening The Assessment Under 148 Of The Act. The Reopening Is Beyond The Powers Of The Jao.

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 80P

Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 658 & 485/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Nitinbhai Nanlal Badani, Cit (Appeals), National Vs. Nirav, Gandhi Gram Main Road, Faceless Appeal Centre, Raiya Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Delhi, New Delhi 110001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb0250C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 Of The Act. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical Therefore These Two Appeals Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 658 & 485/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Nitinbhai Nanlal Badani, Cit (Appeals), National Vs. Nirav, Gandhi Gram Main Road, Faceless Appeal Centre, Raiya Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Delhi, New Delhi 110001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb0250C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 Of The Act. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical Therefore These Two Appeals Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A