INCOME TAX OFFICER, BERHAMPUR vs. PRIYA BRATA MISHRA, BERHAMPUR

Shri P. K. Mishra, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, ld. CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment on account of fact that the notice issued u/s 148A did not provide the required 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Kankanala Ravindre Reddy vs. ITO reported in 334 CTR 646 which was also approved by the Hon’ble High Court by dismissal of SLP filed by the revenue against the said judgment. It was submitted by the ld. AR that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has raised both the issues in regard to notice u/s 148A being less than 7 days’ time and also the issue of JAO. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issues in regard to JAO and not adjudicated the issue in regard to notice u/s 148A being less than 7 days’ time. It was the submission that admittedly, the issue of JAO has to be reversed.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue in regard to statutory minimum 7 days’ requirement of the notice u/s 148A. As it is noticed that the notice u/s 148A was issued on 15.03.2022 and in the notice it was directed to the assessee to comply by 22.03.2022, 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) 2

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 18th May, 2026.