SUJATA PATHAK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, JAMSHEDPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 405/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year-2018-19) Sujata Pathak. I.T.O., Flat No. B1/1, 1st Floor, Aastha Jamshedpur. Vs. Apartment, 2nd Phase, Main Road, Bhatia Bastee, P.O.-Kadma-831005 PAN No. EHVPP 6644 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 09/07/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10232473 dated 20/08/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. None is represented on behalf of the assessee but Shri Sandipan Khan, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

ITA No. 405/Ran/2025 Sujata Pathak vs ITO 4. The ld. Sr.DR in his submission has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We found from perusal of the record that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is on 15/03/2022 and the time given for compliance is 22/03/2022 which is less than the requisite seven days. The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act issued which reads as follows:

We also found that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar Vs ACIT in ITA No. 80/Ran/2024 dated 18/08/2025 had following the

ITA No. 405/Ran/2025 Sujata Pathak vs ITO decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs Pr.CIT in WP(T) No. 2640 of 2023 dated 28/08/2023 wherein it has been held as follows: "5. The entire periphery and ambit of the legal ground is confined to the interpretation of expression "being not less than 7 days..." That as demonstrated by the assessee the notice dated 12th March, 2022 u/s.148A of the Act states that the assessee shall submit the response with supporting documents on or before 18th March, 2022. Therefore, as per section 148A(b) of the Act, excluding these two das ie. Date of issuance of the notice and the date on when response is sought from the assessee, a clear 7 days time should have been provided to the assessee as has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed in W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as follows: 7. To decide the lis involved in the instant application it is necessary to peruse the provisions of the Act which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:- Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. "148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a);" From bare perusal of Section 148A(b) it appears that minimum 7 days is required to be given to the Assessee for filing reply. This 7 day is to be calculated by ignoring the date of issue and the last date of submission. In other words, minimum 7 clear days has to be provided to the Assessee for filing reply. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pioneer Motors (Private )Ltd. Vs Muncipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 sc 684, wherein at paragraph 8 & 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regard to counting of dates. "8. The words "not being less than one month" do imply that clear one months's notice was necessary to be given that is both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. "When...... 'not less than' so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation".

ITA No. 405/Ran/2025 Sujata Pathak vs ITO 9....................... In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consideration the language used and the object to be achieved. As we have said above, the use of the words "not being less than one month" implies the giving of a clear month excluding both the first and the last day of the month……………………………………………………………………………. Emphasis supplied. 6. Considering the aforestated judgment as per the notice issued to the assessee u/s.148A of the Act, the assessee gets only five clear days for response i.e. excluding the date of issuance of the notice and the date on which the response is sought for. This is, therefore, violative of the mandate as prescribed in the Act and also as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court (supra). Therefore, on this score alone, the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings becomes a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law."

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 09/07/2026 *Ranjan

ITA No. 405/Ran/2025 Sujata Pathak vs ITO Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi