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

Rajesh Malhotra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanirajesh Malhotra, Income Tax Officer, 107, Shanti Nagar, Ward - 2(3)(4), Althan Tenament Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Near Suyog Nagar, Majura Gate, Surat Surat Pan: Ablpm1377N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2026 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 11.02.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Id. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi [Cit (A)] Has Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S 148A (D) & Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The I. T. Act, 1961 (The Act), Which Were Clearly Invalid, Time Barred & Bad In Law & Thereby Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Which Is Clearly Invalid & Bad In Law Ab Initio. Appellant Prays For Quashing The Same. 2. Without Prejudice To Above Ground Of Appeal, That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Upholding The Rajesh Malhotra

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh vs. Devinder Kumar Singla, Chandigarh

In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed

ITA 170/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward – 2(1) Devinder Kumar Singla बनाम/ Sco 1126-27, First Floor Room No. 423, Aaykar Bhawan Sector – 22B Vs. Sector – 17, Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh – 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajaps-2131-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & C.O. No.18/Chandi/2026 In [आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.170/Chandi/2026] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward – 2(1) Devinder Kumar Singla बनाम/ Sco 1126-27, First Floor Room No. 423, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Sector – 22B, Chandigarh – 160017 Sector – 17, Chandigarh – 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajaps-2131-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-08-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 01-09-2026 :

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151