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

Nabanita Medhi, Goalpara vs. ITO, Ward Goalpara, Goalpara

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Nabanita Medhi…………………………………………………..…..Appellant Kalitapara, Goalpara Town Assam-783101 [Pan: Bkdpm6847B] Vs. Ito, Ward, Goalpara…………..……...……………………………..Respondent Assam-783101 Appearances By: Shri Nitin Sharma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2026 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File A Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. Information Was Received Through The Compliance Management Strategy (Cms) Of Cbdt By The Assessing Officer Indicating That There Were Substantial Financial Transactions In The Case Of The Assessee. The Information Revealed Total Credits, Including Cash Deposits In The Current Account Maintained With Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Goalpara, Amounting To Rs.2,52,35,581/- & Tds U/S 194C From M/S Goldcrest Services Private

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 250

Arabilachi Vyavasaya Seva Shankar Sangha Limited, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2736/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Arabilachi Vyavasaya Seva Vs. Ito, Shakar Sangha Ltd., Ward – 1 & Tps, Arebo;Acjo Vssn Ltd., Arabilachi, Shimoga. Arabilchi B.O Arebilachi, Shimoga – 577 233. Pan : Aabaa 7189 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. N. Balusamy, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2026 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Credit Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Provisions Of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. The Assessee Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income & The Ao Based On The High Value Transaction, Had Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Even For The Said Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, Assessee Had Not Responded. It Is The Case Of The Ao That The Assessee Had Deposited Into Their Bank Account A Sum Of Rs.74,11,000/- & Rs.1,54,97,000/- & Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balusamy, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69A