Income-tax Act, 1961 · Chapter XIV: Procedure for Assessment
Section 148: Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment
The Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed by the Income-tax Act, 2025 from 1 April 2026. The text is kept here because the judgments below apply it.
In plain words
Before reopening an assessment under section 147, the Assessing Officer must serve a notice on the assessee asking for a return of income for that year. The officer must also record the reasons for issuing the notice.
- The notice is the starting point of reassessment. Without a valid notice the reassessment cannot proceed.
- The return filed in reply is treated like an ordinary return under the Act.
- The officer must record reasons before issuing the notice, under sub-section (2).
- Courts have held that the assessee can ask for these recorded reasons and object to them, and the officer must decide the objections by a separate order.
- The provisos save certain notices tied to returns filed between 1st October 1991 and 30th September 2005.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
[(1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, *** as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished undersection 139:] [Provided that in a case—
(a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section, and
(b) subsequently a notice has been served under sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, re-assessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice:
Provided further that in a case—
(a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and
(b) subsequently a notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice.] [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section.] [(2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.]
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 148 requires the Assessing Officer, before reassessing under section 147, to serve a notice asking the assessee to file a return for the year, and to record the reasons for issuing it. A valid notice is the foundation of the reassessment.
The procedure for objections
The Supreme Court laid down a procedure that became standard. The assessee files a return in response to the notice and may ask for the recorded reasons. The officer must supply them within a reasonable time. The assessee may then object, and the officer must decide the objections by a speaking order before going ahead with the reassessment.
Only the reasons recorded can support the notice. The officer cannot later add new reasons to defend it.
After 2021
The Finance Act, 2021 introduced section 148A, which requires an inquiry, a show cause notice and an order before a notice under section 148 is issued. The text on this page is the earlier version.
Key Supreme Court rulings
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 2002 INSC 494
On receiving a notice under section 148, the assessee should file a return and may seek the reasons; the officer must furnish them and dispose of any objections by a speaking order.
Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal 2022 INSC 510
No notice under section 148 can be issued after 1 April 2021 without following the procedure in section 148A, and notices issued under the old law were treated as notices under section 148A.
Common mistakes
- Rushing to a writ court against the notice without first seeking reasons and objecting.
- Defending a notice on grounds not in the recorded reasons.
Read with: Section 147 Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 139 Income-tax Act, 1961
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 148
-
& Others v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. Etc.
The present matter raised important questions of law relating to interpretation and interplay between Section 144C and Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The question for consideration was on the applicability…
- Ernst and Young U.S. Llp v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
- The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 15 v. Shri Harish Bhasin
- The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 15 v. Shri Harish Bhasin
- The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -15 v. Shri Harish Bhasin
- The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 15 v. Shri Harish Bhasin
- Subhash Chander Dabas v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
- Boeing Singapore Pte. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1 -1- 2 & Anr
- Booking.Com Bv v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Booking Com Bv v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr
- Booking.Com Bv v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle & Anr
- Booking.Com Bv v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 v. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd
- Discovery Communications India v. Addl. Commissioner Ofincome Tax,Special Range - 3, New Delhi
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd[Successor-In-Interest-Of-Erstwhileexperion Developers (International) P v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8 & Ors
- M/S Experion Developers Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer & Anr
- Bishamber Dayal Chander Mohan v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3)
- T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi
- Experion Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer & Ors
- Bishamber Dayal Chander Mohan (Acting Through Competent Partner, Mr. Chander Mohan Agarwal) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi
- Experion Hospitality Pvt Ltd(Earlier Known As Gold Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, & Ors
- Bishamber Dayal Chander Mohan (Acting Through Competent Partner Mr Chander Mohan Agarwal) v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors
- Sulochna Goel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43(1) Delhi and Anr
-
Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal
Whether after 01 April 2021, the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read along with the substituted provisions; whether Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) will continue…
- Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3) Delhi & Anr
- Shakuntlam Softech Private Limited (Now Amalgamated With Shakuntlam Securities Private Limited) v. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1) Delhi & Anr
- Madhu Viniyog Private Limited (Marigold Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Petitioner) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), Delhi & Anr
- Ncubate India Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16 (1), Delhi & Anr
- Paytm Mobile Solutions Private Limited( Now Merged Into One 97 Communications Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors
- Paytm Mobile Solutions Private Limited (Now Merged Into One 97 Communications Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi and Ors
- Paytm Mobile Solutions Private Limited (Now Merded Into One 97 Communications Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi and Ors
- Baba Lease & Investment Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 15(1), Delhi
- Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. After Merger of Csr Technology India- Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19-1 & Ors
- Lecoanet Hemant India Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 & Anr
- Ranjitgarh Finance Co. Private Limited (Transferee Company of Omansh Properties Private Limited) Th v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(1)
- M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt Ltd (Successor of Nokia Siemens Networks India Private L v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) and Anr
- Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. -After Merger of Csr India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19-1 & Ors
- M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited (Successor of Nokia Siemens Networks India P v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1) and Anr
- Alankar Promoters Llp[Earlier Alankar Promoters Pvt. Ltd.] v. Income Tax Officer & Ors
- Religare Enterprises Limited (As Successor-In-Interest of Religare Securities Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors
- Religare Enterprises Ltd. (As Successor-In-Interest of Religare Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Ranjitgarh Finance Co. Private Limited (Transferee Company of Aastha Professional Consultants Priva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(1)
- Siddheshwari Tradex Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. -After Merger of Ikanos Communications India Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19 (1), Delhi and Ors
- Lecoanet Hemant India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor / Transferee Company of Ip Support Services (India) Pvt v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 N.Delhi & Anr
- Gartner India Research and Advisory Services Private Limited v. The Assessing Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi & Anr
- Religare Enterprises Ltd. (As Successor-In-Interest of Religare Arts Investment Management Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Mercer Consulting (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 16(1), Delhi & Ors
- Paytm Mobile Solutions Private Limited (N0W Merged Into One 97 Communications Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi and Others
- International Hospital Limited v. Dcit Circle 12 (2)
- Paytm Mobile Solutions Private Limited ( Now Merged Into One 97 Communications Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi and Ors
- Bsbk Engineers Private Limited (Resulting Company of Parishudh Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cir-13 Delhi
- Elite Wealth Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward8(1), Delhi & Anr
- Religare Enterprises Ltd (As Successor-In-Interest of Rgam Capital India Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Ekum Design Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Ors
- Mercer Consulting (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors
- Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt Ltd( Successor of Nokia Siemens Network India Private Limite v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Prashant Softwares Pvt. Ltd v. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Atma Ram Singhania v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22 (2) Delhi and Ors
- Abhinav Jindal Huf v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1) Delhi and Ors
- Omnipresent Credits Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19-1 & Anr
- Nandita Sikka v. Income Tax Officer Ward 23 (3) Delhi and Ors
- Sabharwal Apartments Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22-2, Delhi and Anr
- Ge Nuovo Pignone S.P.A (Now Known As Nuovo Pignone International Srl) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Delhi - I & Anr
- Ge Nuovo Pignone S.P.A (Now Known As Nuovo Pignone International Srl) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Delhi - I & Anr
- Jaswant Singh Juneja v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(1), Delhi
- Satish Chand Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), Delhi & Anr
- Divine Infracon Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -18, New Delhi
- Genpact India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 10, Osd, New Delhi & Anr
- Divine Infracon Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -18, New Delhi
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 v. Ms Bhudeva Estates Pvt Ltd
- Well Trans Logistics India Pvt.Ltd v. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors
- Primary Real Estate Investments v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, International Tax 2(2)(2), Delhi & Anr
- Shaily Juneja v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 34 -1 and Anr
- Sbc Minerals Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 22(2), Delhi
- Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), & Anr
- Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), & Anr
- Genpact Luxembourg S.A.R.L v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi and Anr
- Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
- Honda Cars India Ltd. (Formerly- M/S. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd v. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax & Anr
- Avni Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi
- Adroit Financial Services Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1),Delhi & Ors
- The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd
- Life Medicare and Biotech Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central - Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Mm Buildcon Pvt. Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ms Believe Developers and Promoters P Ltd
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Fax Central- Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Shivganesh Builders Pvt. Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 v. M/S Lkg Builders Pvt Ltd
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 v. M/S Shivnandan Buildcon (P) Ltd
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central- Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Kartikeya Buildcon (P) Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central II v. M/S Witness Builders Pvt Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 v. Gopal Kumar Goyal
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central- Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Lkg Builders (P) Ltd
- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02 v. M/S M.M Buildcon Pvt. Ltd
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central- Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Witness Constructions (P) Ltd
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-H, New Delhi v. M/S Kartikeya Buildcon (Pvt) Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Ii v. M/S Kartikeya Buildcon (Pvt) Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Elite Buildwell Pvt. Ltd
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Ashutosh Developers Pvt. Ltd