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

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

Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 640/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Shri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Vs. Ito/Assessment Unit, Income House No. 7/2, C-Block, Rajajipuram, Tax Department, Lucknow Talkatora, Lucknow-226017 Pan: Arxps1950P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 31.03.2026, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, That Was Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 28.01.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “Ground No. 1-Non-Condonation Of Delay Of 254 Days: Error In Law & On Facts That The Learned Citia)/Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Ground Of Delay Of 254 Days Without Properly Appreciating: (A) The Bona Fide Health Issues Of The Appellant In The Period Immediately Following The Assessment Order, As Narrated In The Statement Of Facts [Annexure-5); (B) His Lack Of Technological Proficiency In Navigating Faceless Proceedings; (C) Non-Updation Of Email/Mobile On The Income Tax Portal Resulting In Non-Receipt Of Intimations; & (D) Bona Fide Reliance On A Tax Consultant Who Failed To Promptly Inform Him Of The Adverse Order All Of Which Individually & Cumulatively Constitute 'Sufficient Cause' Within The Meaning Of Section 253(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 148ASection 253(5)Section 69