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

Birbhum Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Suri vs. I.T.O. - 3(1), Suri

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2399/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 Birbhum Enterprise Private Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri Limited C/O-P.K. Himmat Singhka & Co., 41, B.B. Ganguly Street, 2Nd Floor, Room No.B4, Kolkata, West Bengal-700012 [Pan: Aafcb4118C] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Himmat Singhka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.08.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,12,650/- Which Has Been Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act At Return Of Income. Subsequently, An Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Came To Be Passed On 30.03.2022 Alleging That The Income Of Rs.29,00,000/- Chargeable To Tax Has Birbhum Enterprise Private Limited; A.Y.: 2018-19 Escaped Assessment Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 20.03.2023 By Making An Addition Of Rs.29,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs.87,000/- U/S 69C Of The Act. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 20.03.2023, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 21.08.2025, Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himmat Singhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Delta Ceramic, Morbi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 735/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 346/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] M/S. Solo Ceramics, The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 8-A, National Highway, At. Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot, Vs. Lalpar, Dist. Morbi, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Gujarat-363641 Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgfs5907F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 735/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] Delta Ceramic, The Income-Tax Officer, 8-A, National Highway, At. Lalpar, Vs. Ward-1, Morbi, Tal. Morbi, Income-Tax Office, Shakti Chamber, Gujarat-363642 Morbi, Gujarat-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifd3582C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Stay Application No. 09/Rjt/2026 [ In Ita No. 735/Rjt/2026 ] [ Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] Delta Ceramic, The Income-Tax Officer, 8-A, National Highway, At. Lalpar, Ward-1, Morbi, Vs. Tal. Morbi, Income-Tax Office, Shakti Chamber, Gujarat-363642 Morbi, Gujarat-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifd3582C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer & Shri Abiram Kartikeyan S., Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2026 & 22/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2026

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer & Shri Abiram Kartikeyan S., Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

Solo Ceramic, Morbi vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 346/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 346/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] M/S. Solo Ceramics, The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 8-A, National Highway, At. Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot, Vs. Lalpar, Dist. Morbi, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Gujarat-363641 Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgfs5907F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 735/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] Delta Ceramic, The Income-Tax Officer, 8-A, National Highway, At. Lalpar, Vs. Ward-1, Morbi, Tal. Morbi, Income-Tax Office, Shakti Chamber, Gujarat-363642 Morbi, Gujarat-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifd3582C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Stay Application No. 09/Rjt/2026 [ In Ita No. 735/Rjt/2026 ] [ Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] Delta Ceramic, The Income-Tax Officer, 8-A, National Highway, At. Lalpar, Ward-1, Morbi, Vs. Tal. Morbi, Income-Tax Office, Shakti Chamber, Gujarat-363642 Morbi, Gujarat-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifd3582C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer & Shri Abiram Kartikeyan S., Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2026 & 22/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2026

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer & Shri Abiram Kartikeyan S., Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263