BHAMA SHAH SARSWATI SHISHU VIDYA MANDIR, BARHI,BARHI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, HAZARIBAGH, HAZARIBAGH

ITA 344/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 September 2026AY 2016-179 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01/03/2023, allowing compliance by 08/03/2023, provided only five clear days for response, which is less than the mandatory seven clear days required by Section 148A(b). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar vs. PCIT (WP(T) No. 2649 of 2023) and a Coordinate Bench decision in Mantosh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITA No. 80/Ran/2024), which followed the High Court's ruling. The Tribunal found that the notice was void ab initio due to the violation of the clear seven-day requirement. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were quashed as a nullity. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 72,88,839/- as unexplained money was not decided on merits as the entire proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhama Shah Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was delayed by 169 days, attributed by the assessee to a lack of awareness of the ex-parte order from the CIT(A) and non-receipt of notice under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee only became aware of the order when the jurisdictional Assessing Officer contacted them for recovery of demand. The Revenue objected to the condonation of delay. The primary issue revolves around the validity of proceedings initiated under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 01/03/2023, which allowed compliance by 08/03/2023, is void ab initio for not providing clear seven days for compliance, thereby rendering subsequent assessment proceedings invalid? Assessee's Contention: The notice issued under Section 148A(b) is void as it violates the mandatory requirement of providing at least seven clear days for compliance, thus infringing principles of natural justice. The subsequent assessment proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed. The assessee also argued that Section 292B of the Act only cures minor technical errors and does not validate a fundamentally flawed notice. Revenue's Contention: The assessee did not raise the issue of insufficient time before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), making it a "malice afterthought" as per the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. The Revenue argued that Section 292B of the Act cures any mistake in the notice. They also distinguished the present case from the Jharkhand High Court's decision in Satish Kumar, stating that the portal was not blocked. The Revenue further contended that the assessee intentionally avoided proceedings and could not explain cash deposits of Rs. 72,88,839/-, thus the addition under Section 69A is justified. They also argued against condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 250,Section 69A,Section 292B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 28/09/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 13/10/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

For that the proceedings initiated U/s 148 is ab-inito void and fit to be quashed since the notice issued U/s 148A(b) dated 01/03/2023 was against the provisions of law as clear 7 days was not allowed to make compliance. As such, since the very notice itself was void and against the principle of natural justice, the assessme

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →