AO Can’t Review Order Passed Under Section 148A(d) | HC
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Chetan Kulasri
- |
- Last Updated on 22 July, 2025

Case Details: Baba Global Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 466 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vibhu Bakhru & Tejas Karia, JJ.
-
Ved Jain, Nischay Kantoor & Ms Soniya Dodeja, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Shlok Chandra, Ms Nancy Jain & Ms Madhavi Shukla, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148A(b) to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued. The assessee responded to the notice by furnishing the requisite information and reasons.
The AO, after considering the response, issued an order under Section 148A(d) dropping the proceedings. However, the AO, at the instance of the ‘specified authority,’ reviewed the said order and issued another order under Section 148A(b) holding that it was a fit case for the issuance of notice under Section 148.
The matter reached the Delhi High Court.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that Section 148A(d) mandated that the AO decides whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under Section 148 by passing an order with the prior approval of the specified authority. The AO is a deciding authority.
In the present case, the AO had initially decided that it was not a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 but subsequently revised the decision, apparently based on approval from the specified authority. The subsequent order issued by the AO was contrary to the first order. It was a case of reviewing the order, not a clerical or typographical error. Thus, the AO has no power to review an order under Section 148A(d).
List of Cases Reviewed
- Raminder Singh v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 148/[2024] 461 ITR 368 (Delhi) (para 11) – Followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Raminder Singh v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 148/[2024] 461 ITR 368 (Delhi) (para 11).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

CA | CS | CMA