AMIT KUMAR NEWATIA,KENDUJHAR, ODISHA vs. ITO WARD KEONJHAR, KEONJHAR, ORISSA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 May 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A was invalid as it did not provide the statutory 7 days' time for compliance. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act did not provide the mandatory 7 days' compliance time.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 148A is invalid if it fails to provide the mandatory 7 days' compliance time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK”

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK” BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.58/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Amit Kumar Newatia ITO Ward-Keonjhar

D1/4F Rungta Colony, Near Vs Barbil Post Office, Barbil, Kendujhar, Odisha-758035. (PAN: ACBPN9461B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2018- 19/10433430 dated 28.11.2025.

2.

Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s 148A of the Act dated 29.03.2023, which reads as under:

ITA No.58/CTK/2026

4.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that the notice issued u/s 148A did not provide the required 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148A is dated 29.03.2023 and in the notice itself, it was directed to the assessee to comply by 05.04.2023, hence statutory 7 days’ time has not been provided to the assessee. It was the submission

ITA No.58/CTK/2026 that the notice issued u/s 148A is invalid and consequent proceedings are also invalid.

4.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the notice u/s 148A was issued on 29.03.2023 and in the notice it was directed to the assessee to comply by 05.04.2023, hence statutory 7 days’ time has not been provided to the assessee, notice issued u/s 148A itself is found to be invalid. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023. This being so and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar referred to supra, the notice issued u/s 148A of the Act is held to be invalid and consequently is quashed and the assessment order based on the invalid notice also stands quashed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Cuttack, the 25th May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 25.05.2026. RS

ITA No.58/CTK/2026

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →