RADHAMOHAN RAI BY LEGAL HEIR KRISHNAVATI RAI, JHAJGIR CHAMPA,JHAJGIR CHAMPA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid and void ab initio because it failed to provide the mandatory minimum of seven clear days for the assessee's response. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered null and void.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148. The primary contention was that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) did not grant the mandatory minimum period of seven clear days for compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings are void due to the issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) without granting the mandatory minimum period of seven clear days for compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 03.03.2026 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
In this case, the assessee had raised both grounds on merits as well as legal ground. In this regard, the assessee had filed revised grounds of appeal and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if the Ground of appeal No.2 of such revised ground is answered in favour of the assessee, then she will at home. Rest other grounds may be academic only. The revised Ground of appeal No.2 is extracted as follows: “2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 on the basis of a show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) dated 21.03.2022 without granting the mandatory minimum period of seven clear days for compliance, in violation of the statutory provisions, and the Ld.CIT(A) further erred in sustaining the same despite admitting such shortfall on an erroneous premise of absence of prejudice, and therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.”
The relevant notice u/s.148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 21.03.2022 is also extracted as follows:
3 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
4 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
I find that similar issue has been dealt with by the ITAT, SMC 4. Bench, Raipur in the case of Wadhawa Mission Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, ITA No.385/RPR/2025, dated 22.07.2025 in favour of the assessee against the Revenue observing as follows: “4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel has assailed legal ground regarding validity of notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act wherein clear 7 days’ time for compliance has not been provided to the assessee. Referring to Pages 25 & 26 of paper book, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated that notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act was issued on 20.03.2022 and compliance was sought for on 26.03.2022 which is less than 7 days excluding the date of issuance and the date when such compliance is sought for. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that as held by Hon’ble High Courts that in notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is concerned, excluding the date of issuance of notice and date of compliance sought for mandatorily a clear cut 7 days was required. 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 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
“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 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. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Ranchi District Bar Association Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.P (T) No.4606 of 2023, dated 27.02.2025 on the same issue has held and observed as follows: “2. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(T) No. 2640 of 2023 vide order dt. 28.08.2023 considered the provisions of the Income Tax Act and held as under: “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
6 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
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. 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.”
7 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
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 7. the case of Imran 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: “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
8 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
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. 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.”
9 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
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. 8. As per the above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the notice u/s.148A(b)/148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 is held invalid and void ab initio, hence quashed. 9. Since notice itself u/s.148A(b)/148 has been held to be nullity, therefore, such invalid notice cannot set in motion any valid subsequent proceedings and resultantly, all other proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 10. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 11.
Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the notice u/s.148A(b)/148 of the Act, dated 21.03.2022 is held invalid and void ab initio, hence quashed.
Since notice itself u/s.148A(b)/148 has been held to be nullity, therefore, such invalid notice cannot set in motion any valid subsequent
10 Radhamohan Rai by Legal Heir Krishnavati Rai Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.281/RPR/2026
proceedings and resultantly, all other proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue raised in Ground of appeal No.2 has been answered in favour of the assessee, therefore, the grounds on merits becomes academic only.
That as per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 22nd day of April, 2026.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 22nd April, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Samira Digitally signed by n Bera, Samiran Bera, // True Copy // Sr. PS, ITAT, Sr. PS, Raipur Senior Private Secretary Date: ITAT, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 2026.04.22 15:02:08 Raipur +05'30'
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
