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

Income Tax Officer 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Astra Exim Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 230/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. Nos. 198 & 230/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ito Officer 9 (1)(1) Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 205, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) Vs Astra Exim Pvt Ltd Unit No. 4101, 4Th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estate, С- Wing, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aadca9987A (Respondent) Co. No. 108/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2014-15 Astra Exim Pvt Ltd Unit No. 4101, 4Th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estate, С- Wing, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aadca9987A (Appellant) Vs Ito Officer 9 (1)(1) Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 205, М.К. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gaurav Bansal Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Cit –Dr & Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Per Sandeep Gosain (Jm): The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 24.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objection Are Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 198/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250

Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3597/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149