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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sunanda Polymers, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5819/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sunanda Polymers 43/4, 1St Floor, New Delhi Vs. East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Sh. Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri. Tarun Sarda, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 08/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 24.06.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144(B) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143 Of The Act Dated 18.05.2023 Wherein The Total Addition Of Rs. 3,05,67,087/- Was Made To The Total Income Of Rs. 77,57,074/- Vide Order Dated 13.12.2019 And, Accordingly, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Recomputed At Rs.3,83,24,161/-. Acit Vs. Sunanda Polymers 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Reopening Of The Assessment & Further Challenged The Additions So Made On Merits. The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Has Deleted The Additions As Well As Holding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Is Not Correct As It Was Initiated On Wrong Presumption & Without Application Of Mind.

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 37