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

Smt. Kumud Yadav, Kanpur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 281/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Kumud Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Plot No. 192A, Awadhpuri Road, Unit, Income Tax Department, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar Nfac, Delhi Pan: Abjpy4062E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Seth, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 11.0.025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Set Aside The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Passed For The A.Y. 016-17 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid As The Same Violates The Provisions Of "E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022" Notified On 29.03.22 Framed In Pursuance Of Sub Sections 1 & 2 Of Section 151A Of The Act Laying Down The Issue Of Notice U/S 148 In The Faceless Manner Through Automated Allocation Whereas In The Assessee'S Case It Has Not Been Issued In A Faceless Manner But By Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Who Was Not Assigned The Case In An Automated Manner. (Reliance On Judgement In The Case Of Hexaware Technoligies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others Reported In 464 Itr P. 430 (Paras 32 To 39).

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Seth, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Gopal Chandra Bagui, Uluberia vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Range 146, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3013/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Gopal Chandra Bagui………….…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Uluberia, Jagadishpur, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Adwpb9619F] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16. As Per Information Available With The Department, The Assessee Has Sold An Immovable Property For A Sale Consideration Of Rs.50,14,000/-. Order U/S 148A(D) Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Did Neither Comply Nor Made Any Submission. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Assessing Total Income Of Rs.50,14,000/- & A Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Initiated.

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)