LION JEANS,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 60(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148A(b) was bad in law due to the insufficient compliance period. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were also quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee received a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with only five days for compliance, which is less than the statutory seven days. The assessee argued that this violated the mandatory period and prejudiced them.
What were the issues?
Whether a notice issued under section 148A(b) with less than the mandatory seven days for compliance is valid. Whether a penalty is sustainable if the assessment is quashed due to a defective notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 5494 & 5495/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-19)
LION JEANS, Vs ACIT, CIRCLE 60(1), C/O 9, ATTA-UR-REHMAN DELHI LANE, CIVIL LINES, DELHI - 110 054 (PAN: AADFL3594M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Shri S.B. Gupta, CA Ms. Harpreet Haur Hansra, Sr. DR. Respondent by
Date of hearing: 06/4/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05/6/2026
ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: These are quantum as well as penalty appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short “the Ld. CIT(A)) relevant to assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.03.2022 and the time given for compliance is 17.03.2022 which is less than the requisite seven days period. It was further submitted that under identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Sai Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2022] 447 ITR 350 (Delhi) dated 12.5.2022 has quashed the 1
assessment. Hence, it was prayed to follow the aforesaid ratio and notice u/s. 148 of the Act and its consequent assessment may be quashed. Further, it is submitted that since the notice u/s. 148 as well as assessment are bad in law, the penalty is also not valid and thus be deleted. 3. In reply, the Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the records, it is noted that the instant issue of the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Sai Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2022] 447 ITR 350 (Delhi) dated 12.5.2022 wherein, the Hon’ble has observed as under:- “A minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the assessee to file a reply to the show-cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before issuing an order under section 148A(d) for issue of notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment under section 147.
Held, that there had been a violation of the mandatory time period stipulated under section 148A(b) and therefore, prejudice had been caused to the assessee. Though the assessee had responded to the show-cause notice, it could not provide all the relevant details and documents since the time of three days to respond to show-cause notice was inadequate. Consequently, the order dated April 6, 2022 passed under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 were quashed.”
4.1 In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the aforesaid precedent, we are of the considered view that the time provided in the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act is less than the seven days prescribed by statute, thus the notice issued is held to be bad in law and consequently stands quashed. Since the notice issued under section 148A(b) of
the Act stands quashed, as aforesaid, the consequential assessment order also stands quashed. 5. In the result, the quantum appeal being ITA No. 5494/Del/2025 is allowed. 6. As regards penalty No. ITA 5495/Del/2025 is concerned, since we have already quashed the notice as well as assessment, as aforesaid, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is hereby deleted and accordingly, the penalty appeal of the assessee is also allowed. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05-06-2026. Sd/- Sd/-
(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *SR BHATNAGGAR* Date:- 05.6.2026 Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026