SHOURYA POLICE PETROL PUMP,GARIYABAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

These captioned appeals preferred by the same assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 06.02.2026 for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

3 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

4 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

“5. Reverting to the facts of the present case of the assessee, date of issuance of notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is 20.03.2022 and compliance from assessee sought for is 26.03.2022, therefore, a clear cut 7 days time excluding the date of issuance of notice and date of compliance sought for is absent. That the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MM Wonder Park Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, passed in Writ Petition (T) No.172/2022, dated 17.06.2022, had observed, that the A.O had issued a show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act giving just 7 days’ time to the assessee/petitioner to file its reply. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that the time period of 7 days provided to the assessee vide notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act was unreasonably short, and thus, violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned case had quashed both the order passed by the A.O. u/s.148A(b) of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 and the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 05.04.2022, and set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee/petitioner. For the sake of clarity, the observations of Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the above referred to documents/Annexures and other material available with due care. 6. From perusal of the documents/Annexures, it appears that the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed with regard to a transaction which occurred in the financial year 2014-15 after serving a notice dated 25.3.2022 (Annexure P1) and giving a mere 7 days' time to the Petitioner/assessee to furnish a reply to the said notice. The time granted to the Petitioner/assessee to submit reply to the said notice appears to be unreasonable short and the Petitioner/assessee cannot be blamed for not being able to file the reply within such a short period. Thus, it appears that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner/assessee appears to be reasonable. Thus, the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 5.4.2022 (Annexure P3) issued under Section 148 of the Act are

5 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

quashed and the Respondents are directed to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner/assessee and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed”.

6 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

“8. The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one month'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”. ……………………………………. 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. 8. Thus, we see that the law is no more res-integra; inasmuch as, the words ‘not be less than 7 days’ implies that clear seven days is obligatory to be given to the Assessee. Thus, on the one hand the notice which was given to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with the provision of the Act, inasmuch as, only 6 clear days was given to him. So, on this score alone the notice under Section 148A(b) deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 3. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said proposition of law laid down in that case. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned ex- parte assessment order as well as the penalty orders passed by the respondents are set aside. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to reply to the show cause notice dt. 23.03.2022 and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law within three months from the date of filing of the reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice after complying with the principles of natural justice.”

Further, I find that ITAT, Ranchi “SMC” Bench in the case of Imran 7. Ahmed Vs. ITO, Giridih, ITA No.357/RAN/2024, dated 18.12.2024 after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT, W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 on the similar issue had held and observed as follows:

7 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

“5. The entire periphery and ambit of the legal ground is confined to the interpretation of expression “being not less then 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 dates i.e. 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 06/28.08.2023. 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. Municipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 SC 684 wherein at paragraph 8 and 9 the Hon’ble Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regard to counting of dates.

8 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

“8. The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one month'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”. ……………………………………. 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. 8. Thus, we see that the law is no more res-integra; inasmuch as, the words ‘not be less than 7 days’ implies that clear seven days is obligatory to be given to the Assessee. Thus, on the one hand the notice which was given to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with the provision of the Act, inasmuch as, only 6 clear days was given to him. So, on this score alone the notice under Section 148A(b) deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 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 principle 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 non est in the eyes of law. 7. That, since the Bench has answered this additional legal ground in favour of the assessee raised in this appeal, resultantly, all other grounds raised both on merits as well as the other legal grounds becomes academic in nature.

9 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

10 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

ITA No. 356/RPR/2026 A.Y. 2019-20

“4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in initiating penalty u/s 271B, 272A(1)(d) and 234F of the Act.” 10. The assessee was aggrieved with the initiation of penalty and the CIT(A) at Para 6 of his order writes that since it is only initiation of penalty and therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the assessee and the appeal was dismissed. The relevant findings are extracted as follows:

“6. FINDINGS & DECISION: The grounds of appeal are only in respect of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B, 272A(1)d) and 234F for failure to get accounts audited and furnish the audit report within time and other issues. The appellant has no cause of prejudice, at this point, as no penalty was levied through the assessment order and only initiation of penalty proceedings was taken up. If the appellant is aggrieved by penalty, if any levied under penalty order, he may choose to file an appeal against the penalty orders. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.” 11. That as evident the CIT(A) has never decided on the validity of initiation of penalty nor has determined the validity of levy of penalty under section 271B, 272A(1)(d) and 234F of the Act. That as quasi-judicial authority and as per mandate of the Act necessary enquiry had to be

11 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

conducted by the First Appellate Authority regarding validity of initiation of penalty and then he should have come to the a specific conclusion. That on a plain reading of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) it is crystal clear that such findings are given in a summary manner and is perverse since there is no adjudication on the issues raised before him by the assessee. Following the principles of natural justice I set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication on issues emanating in ITA No. 356/RPR/2026 and to come out with a speaking order as per mandate of the Act while complying with principles of natural justice. The assessee shall also comply with the hearing notices issued by the Department.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2026.

Sd/- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 24th June, 2026. Tanmay, Sr. PS

12 Shourya Police Petrol Pump vs. ITO ITA Nos.355 & 3568/RPR/2026

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.