MOHAMED NAGUTHA MARAICAYAR,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CUDDALORE

ITA 772/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 September 2026AY 2015-168 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The AO issued the notice under Section 148A(b) on 18.03.2022, requiring a response by 24.03.2022, which provided only five clear days. Section 148A(b) mandates providing not less than seven clear days to the assessee for responding. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil, clarified that 'not less than seven days' implies seven clear days, excluding both the date of issue and the last date of submission. The omission by the AO to grant the mandatory seven clear days vitiated the action of reopening the assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 dated 30.03.2022 was rendered invalid, and the assessment completed on 15.03.2023 based on this invalid notice was held to be non-est in the eyes of law and a nullity. The Tribunal did not decide any other issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohamed Nagutha Maraicayar, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.01.2026, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's (AO) action for Assessment Year 2015-16. The core of the dispute lies in the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not provide the mandatory seven clear days for response, instead giving only five clear days. This procedural lapse, according to the assessee, rendered the subsequent notice under Section 148 and the final assessment order dated 15.03.2023 invalid and void ab initio. The amount in dispute, Rs. 1,35,45,430/-, was added in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of the assessment for AY 2015-16 is invalid due to the Assessing Officer (AO) not granting clear seven days while issuing the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby rendering the consequent assessment order dated 15.03.2023 invalid and void ab initio? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) dated 18.03.2022 provided only five clear days for response, contravening the mandatory seven clear days stipulated in the provision. This procedural defect vitiated the subsequent notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2022 and the assessment order dated 15.03.2023, making them non-est in the eyes of law. The assessee relied on the principle of challenging jurisdiction at any stage and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil regarding the calculation of days. The assessee also referred to a Jharkhand High Court decision. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee cannot challenge the assessment order after participating in the assessment proceedings and urged for the dismissal of the legal issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 10.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2015-16, wherein, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Mohamed Nagutha Maraicayar 2. Assessee has raised

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(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →