DYAGERAHALLI RAMANNA JAYARAM ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TUMKUR

ITA 2846/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2018-1912 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal as they were purely legal, went to the root of the assessment proceedings, and could be adjudicated on the basis of existing records, citing National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 148A(b) dated 22.03.2022, requiring a reply by 28.03.2022, violated the mandatory requirement of providing "not less than seven days" for furnishing a reply. The Tribunal clarified that "clear days" exclude both the date of issuance/service and the date fixed for compliance. Relying on Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted the requisite "clear days" and that the intervening holidays (Holi) further reduced the effective period. Consequently, the order passed under section 148A(d), the notice issued under section 148 dated 31.03.2022, and the assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 were quashed. The reassessment proceedings were set aside. The remaining grounds on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The ratio is that a mandatory minimum period for response in a statutory notice must be strictly adhered to, calculated as "clear days", and any violation renders subsequent proceedings invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dyagerahalli Ramanna Jayaram, filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee sought to raise additional grounds challenging the jurisdictional validity of reassessment proceedings. These grounds pertained to the legality of notices issued under section 148A(b) and section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the validity of sanction under section 151, and the consequential levy of statutory interest. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated reassessment proceedings as the assessee, an individual engaged as a field business correspondent agent, had not filed a return of income despite cash deposits of Rs. 65,95,000/- and contract income of Rs. 1,60,000/-. A notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 22.03.2022, requiring a reply by 28.03.2022, which the assessee contended was less than the mandatory seven days. The reassessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144, assessing income at Rs. 67,55,000/-, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the unsigned notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 22.03.2022 is bad in law, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the notices issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, providing less than seven days for compliance, are contrary to the Act and liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 is without jurisdiction subsequent to the introduction of the "faceless Scheme"? 4. Whether the assessee is liable to pay interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, and if so, whether the rate, period, and quantum are in accordance with law and discernible from the order? Assessee's Contentions: - The additional grounds are pure questions of law arising from existing records and do not require fresh evidence, admissible at any stage as per National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and Gundathur Thimmappa & Sons vs. CIT. - The notice under section 148A(b) dated 22.03.2022, requiring a reply by 28.03.2022, granted less than seven days, violating the mandatory requirement of "not less than seven days" and "not exceeding thirty days" prescribed in section 148A(b), rendering subsequent proceedings invalid. - The notice under section 148 was issued without jurisdiction post-faceless scheme. - Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is not leviable due to no additional tax liability and is also not discernable. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted, and no prejudice was caused to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 139,Section 151,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. H, JCIT

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereafter- the learned CIT(A)) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter- the Act) vide order dated 27.09.2025. 2. In the memo of appeal, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal.

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 →