DIPLU KUMAR,DEOGARH vs. ITO WARD 3(1), DEOGHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it provided less than the statutorily required seven clear days for compliance. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent assessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC. The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for providing less than the mandatory seven days for compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) providing less than seven clear days for compliance is invalid. Whether consequential assessment proceedings are nullified if the initial notice is bad in law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: BENCH
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10232103 dated 10/03/2026 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandipan Khan, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.
The ld. AR has placed on record an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: "For that the show notice U/s 148A(b) dated 14/03/2022 was invalid and thus the proceedings initiated thereby deserves to be quashed. As per the notice dated 14/03/2022 compliance was sought for on or before 21/03/2022, whereas, as per the provisions of l
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148A(b)
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Mittal Alloy Castings Co., Raigarh vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), BilaspurITA 685/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Farman Sk, Malda vs I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), MaldaITA 3001/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Pramila Satyanarayan Bhandari, Surat vs DCIT, Circle-1(3), SuratITA 22/SRT/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026