#Section 148

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act is a statutory floor that appellate courts cannot reduce, holding that a Sessions Judge's reduction to 10% and subsequent bail cancellation for non-compliance with the unlawful condition was impermissible. This safeguards appellants from arbitrary deposit reductions and ensures bail conditions adhere strictly to the statutory mandate.

ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment beyond three years under Section 148 mandates PCCIT or CCIT sanction under Section 151; PCIT approval is jurisdictionally invalid. The tribunal quashed a notice where only PCIT approval was obtained, reinforcing the strict hierarchy for time-barred proceedings and protecting taxpayers from procedurally flawed orders.

The Gujarat High Court held that conditions for suspending sentence in Section 138 NI Act appeals cannot be imposed mechanically, quashing a Sessions Court order mandating 100% cheque amount deposit. The Court substituted this with a 20% deposit and an undertaking to attend hearings, aligning with Section 148 NI Act's framework. This ruling protects appellants from oppressive pre-conditions while ensuring the complainant's interim relief.

The Court held that the 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act is directory, not mandatory. It set aside the non-speaking order and remanded for a fresh waiver application to be decided within 15 days by a reasoned speaking order.

The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under section 148 is valid only if the escaped income is an asset as per Explanation 2 to section 153A, noting that unsecured loans received by the assessee qualify as such assets and that liability-side entries do not defeat the extended limitation when the escaped amount exceeds ₹50 lakh.

Assessing officers cannot invoke Section 148 to reopen returns when the material originates from a search conducted before 31 March 2021; such cases fall within the block period of Section 153C. This limits revenue’s power to reassess older assessments and guides practitioners on the correct statutory basis. Taxpayers with assessments from that period are protected from improper reopening.

Uttarakhand HC held that the 20% fine-deposit under Section 148 NI Act may be lowered to Rs 10,000 for appellants facing extreme financial hardship. The reduced deposit is conditioned on the appeal being heard on its merits, creating discretionary relief for indigent defendants.

The Gujarat High Court set aside a 2019 Section 148 notice, ruling that without new, concrete material a tax authority cannot reopen an assessment merely on a revised opinion. This reinforces that any reassessment must be backed by fresh evidence, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary reopening.

The Delhi High Court set aside the Section 148 order that forced the accused to deposit 20 % of the compensation amount during the pendency of his appeal. It waived the deposit requirement and instructed the appellate court to dispose of the appeal within six weeks, easing the petitioner’s financial hardship.

An assessment order issued under Section 148 after the assessee’s death is deemed void from the outset, rendering the notice ineffective. This ruling bars revenue authorities from reopening assessments of deceased taxpayers without proper procedural basis, protecting legal heirs from unwarranted tax demands.

The ITAT Delhi held that commission income from accommodation entries must be taxed at a reasonable rate of 0.15% of total credits, rejecting the arbitrary 3% estimate. It also ruled that a reassessment notice under Section 148 is invalid without prior approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii), protecting assessees from procedural lapses.

ITAT Pune quashes reassessment notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 after harmonious construction of Section 149(1) provisos. The ruling underscores strict compliance with limitation periods in reassessment proceedings, impacting taxpayers facing similar notices.

ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment for AY 2012-13 after finding the prescribed authority’s Section 151 approval lacked independent application of mind. Ruling reaffirms that mechanical approvals violate judicial discipline and render reopening proceedings invalid under CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015).

Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order quashing a Section 148 reassessment notice, restoring the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur’s jurisdiction to re-examine the case under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The ruling clarifies that appellate jurisdiction under the Act remains distinct from writ jurisdiction, impacting reassessment proceedings pending before ITAT.

ITAT Surat quashed a reassessment notice u/s 148 issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16, relying on Rajeev Bansal (SC) and Deepak Steel (SC). The ruling clarifies procedural validity of reassessment notices under amended Section 147-149 post-TOLA amendments.