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

Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee being ITA

ITA 4192/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 4189/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 2. Ita No. 4190/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 4191/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4192/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Patil Ranajagjitsingh Ito Padmasinha Huf It-Office, Vashi 101 Sagar Ratan, Indl Vs. Railway Station Premise, D-265 Midc Building, Navi Ttc, Ind Area, Mumbai-400 705 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aabhp5884Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal & Shri Suhas Kulkarni, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shree Kumar C., Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016- 17. Since Common Facts & Interconnected Issues Are Involved, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Details Of Appeals Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee being ITA

ITA 4191/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 4189/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 2. Ita No. 4190/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 4191/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4192/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Patil Ranajagjitsingh Ito Padmasinha Huf It-Office, Vashi 101 Sagar Ratan, Indl Vs. Railway Station Premise, D-265 Midc Building, Navi Ttc, Ind Area, Mumbai-400 705 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aabhp5884Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal & Shri Suhas Kulkarni, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shree Kumar C., Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016- 17. Since Common Facts & Interconnected Issues Are Involved, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Details Of Appeals Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee being ITA

ITA 4190/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 4189/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 2. Ita No. 4190/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 4191/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4192/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Patil Ranajagjitsingh Ito Padmasinha Huf It-Office, Vashi 101 Sagar Ratan, Indl Vs. Railway Station Premise, D-265 Midc Building, Navi Ttc, Ind Area, Mumbai-400 705 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aabhp5884Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal & Shri Suhas Kulkarni, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shree Kumar C., Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016- 17. Since Common Facts & Interconnected Issues Are Involved, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Details Of Appeals Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee being ITA

ITA 4189/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 4189/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 2. Ita No. 4190/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 4191/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4192/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Patil Ranajagjitsingh Ito Padmasinha Huf It-Office, Vashi 101 Sagar Ratan, Indl Vs. Railway Station Premise, D-265 Midc Building, Navi Ttc, Ind Area, Mumbai-400 705 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aabhp5884Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal & Shri Suhas Kulkarni, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shree Kumar C., Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016- 17. Since Common Facts & Interconnected Issues Are Involved, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Details Of Appeals Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Rajesh Gupta, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 47(1), New Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed and the impugned reassessment proceedings and consequent assessment are quashed

ITA 280/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklarajesh Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 47(1) 3968-C, First Floor, Drum Shape Building, Naya Bazar, I.P. Estate Building, Delhi – 110006 New Delhi – 110002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapg7542H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manu Gawri, Ca Sh. Madhav Gawri, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 O R D E R Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 Of The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Din & Order No: Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1084093412(1) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24.05.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department For Ay: 2017-18. P A G E | 2 Rajesh Gupta (Ay: 2017-18) 2. On Hearing Both Sides We Find That On Account Of Alleged Bogus Sales Addition Was Made Which Has Been Sustained By Ld. Cit(A) But The Issue Canvassed Before Us Is That The Requisite Sanction Of The Prescribed Specified Authority U/S 148A(D) R.W.S 148 Has Not Been Taken & In This Regard, We Find Admittedly Approval U/S 151 Of The Act Has Been Taken From Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Delhi. The Assessment Year Involved Is 2017-18 & In The Light Of Aforesaid Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Case Of Ashish Aggarwal Scc Online Sc 543 For The Relevant Assessment Year The Prescribed Authority To Give Approval Was Pr. Cit. Ld. Dr Could Not Disputed Aforesaid Facts & Proposition Of Law Cited, Thus, We Are Inclined To Sustain Corresponding Ground. The Appeal Of The Assesse Is Allowed & The Impugned Reassessment Proceedings & Consequent Assessment Are Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Gawri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr
Section 147Section 148ASection 151

Amit Pahuja, Indore vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 868/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeamit Pahuja Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Thane 6 Roopam Nagar, Near Manik Office Of Dcit, Ashar It Park, 6Th Bagh Over Bridge, Indore, Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Madhya Pradesh-452013 Industrial Estate, Thane-400604 Pan: Atspp4469M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jaideep Jain Adv. & Shri Ashish Goyal Adv. (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2019-20, Date Of Order 16.01.2026. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 13.01.2025. 2 Amit Pahuja 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Additional Grounds Which Are As Below: “The Following May Kindly Be Admitted As Additional Grounds: - 3. That, The Proceeding Initiated By Ld.Ao U/S 148 Are Illegal, Invalid, Without Jurisdiction, Void-Ab-Initio, Non Est, Barred By Limitation. 4. That, The Reopening Of Assessment Beyond Three Years Is Bad In Law, As The Conditions Prescribed Under Section 149(1)(B) Have Not Been Satisfied. 5. That, The Approval Was Taken From Pr. Cit Instead Of Pr. Ccit/Ccit As Mandated Under Section 151 In Case Notice U/S 148 Issued Beyond 3 Years.”

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Jain Adv. & Shri Ashish Goyal Adv. (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 80G