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

ITA 344/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 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, dated 01/03/2023, requiring compliance by 08/03/2023, provided less than the mandatory seven clear days. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar vs. PCIT, Ranchi, which was followed by a Coordinate Bench in Mantosh Kumar vs. ACIT. The High Court's judgment, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd., held that 'clear seven days' means excluding both the date of issuance and the date of response. Since the notice in the present case provided only five clear days, it was held to be void ab initio. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment, were quashed. The Tribunal noted that the issue of the addition of Rs. 72,88,839/- as unexplained money was not decided as the entire proceedings were nullified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhama Shah Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, filed an appeal against the order of 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 not receiving a 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 a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 01/03/2023, which the assessee claims did not provide the mandatory seven clear days for compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 01/03/2023, is void ab initio for failing to provide the mandatory seven clear days for compliance, thereby rendering subsequent assessment proceedings invalid? Assessee's contention: The notice issued under Section 148A(b) on 01/03/2023, requiring compliance by 08/03/2023, violates the provisions of law as it does not grant seven clear days. This makes the notice void and quashes the consequent assessment proceedings. The assessee also argues that Section 292B of the Act only cures minor technical errors and does not validate a notice that is fundamentally flawed and barred by limitation. The reliance on GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. is misplaced as the validity of the proceedings itself is challenged. Revenue's contention: The revenue argues that the assessee did not avail the time provided nor raised any objection regarding the deficiency in time before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, as per the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, this argument cannot be raised at this stage. The revenue also distinguishes the present case from the Jharkhand High Court's decision in Satish Kumar, stating that the portal was not blocked. They further contend that Section 292B of the Act cures any mistake in the notice. The assessee is accused of intentionally avoiding proceedings and failing to explain cash deposits of Rs. 72,88,839/-, making the addition under Section 69A justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 250,Section 69A,Section 292B,Section 148,Section 147

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 →