MEENA THAKUR,SUNDARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

ITA 633/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was indeed invalid. A perusal of the facts revealed that the notice was issued on March 14, 2024, and the assessee was directed to comply by March 21, 2024. This clearly did not provide the statutory seven days' clear time. The Tribunal found support for this view in the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023). Consequently, following the precedent set by the Jharkhand High Court, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148A of the Act. As the assessment order was based on this invalid notice, it also stood quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Meena Thakur, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was delayed by 11 days, but the Tribunal condoned the delay. The core of the dispute revolved around a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice, dated March 14, 2024, with a compliance date of March 21, 2024, did not provide the mandatory seven days' clear time as required by law. The revenue, represented by the Sr. D.R., supported the order of the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid for failing to provide the statutory seven days' clear time for compliance? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the notice dated March 14, 2024, requiring compliance by March 21, 2024, did not grant the statutorily mandated seven days' time. Therefore, the notice was invalid, and all consequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were also invalid. The assessee relied on the principle that procedural irregularities can vitiate the entire process. Revenue's contention: The revenue's learned counsel vehemently supported the order of the NFAC and did not present any specific arguments against the assessee's contention regarding the notice period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 30/09/2026Pronounced: 30/09/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, DELHI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2020-21/10501124 dated 11.03.2026 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Shri P. K. Mishra, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 11 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay

2 stating sufficient reasons for the delay. Considering the co

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 →