Section 148 of Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021, does not even require recording reason to believe.
In a recent judgment, Delhi High Court has held that language of section 148 of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021, does not even require recording reason to believe much less possession of information or evidence.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4988 (2026) (01) abcaus.in HC
in the instant case, the Petitioner/assessee had filed a writ petition challenging notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
It was contended before the Hon’ble High Court that except for the excel sheet, which was found during the search at premises of a Business Group in which the petitioner’s name reflecting a cash transaction was mentioned, there was no other material against her.
It was argued that unless the Assessing Officer is able to establish a link of the petitioner with that transaction or is able to bring on record any other incriminating material, he cannot proceed against the petitioner.
On query, the Petitioner admitted the factum of purchasing a flat from said group. However, it was argued that simply because the petitioner had purchased a flat from the said builder, reassessment proceeding against her cannot be initiated.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the material, which had been relied upon by the Assessing Officer, was enough to infer escapement of income of the petitioner-assessee in the relevant assessment year. Language of section 148 of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021, does not even require recording reason to believe much less possession of information or evidence
The Hon’ble High Court opined that it was for the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authority that the basis is erroneous or that she had no nexus with the amount, which had been shown by the said Business Group.Â
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that the impugned notice could not be said to be without jurisdiction or otherwise void. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO
- Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence
- When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken
- EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC
- Return of export cargo from Hormuz Strait where vessel do not lands at original port
