FARMAN SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

ITA 3001/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 October 2026AY 2020-202110 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Farman Sk, filed a return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 declaring a total income of ₹10,09,007/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on March 29, 2024, requiring the assessee to furnish a return within 30 days. The assessee did not comply. A notice under Section 142(1) was also issued and not complied with. Consequently, the AO completed an ex-parte assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144B, making an addition of ₹10,84,00,788/- on account of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), the appellate authority, restored the issue to the AO. The assessee appealed this order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated March 29, 2024, was invalid as it allowed only 30 days for furnishing the return of income, which is contrary to the statutory requirement. The Tribunal noted that the AO had called for bank statements under Section 133(6) and observed cash deposits of ₹10,84,00,788/-. However, the insufficient time provided in the Section 148 notice rendered it a nullity. The Tribunal followed the decision of its co-ordinate Bench in M/s Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, which in turn relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Panjos Builders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mukesh J. Ruparel v. ITO. These decisions held that a notice providing less than the mandatory period (e.g., 7 days for Section 148A(b), and implicitly a longer period for Section 148 itself) vitiates the notice and all consequential proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment framed by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, and consequently the assessment framed under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144B, is invalid and nullity in law, turning on the period allowed for furnishing the return of income. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because it allowed only 30 days for furnishing the return of income, whereas the law mandates 60 days. Therefore, the consequential assessment is also invalid and should be quashed. The assessee relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in M/s Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee did not cooperate in the assessment proceedings and failed to file the return of income or reply to notices. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) restoring the issue to the AO should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, DR
Hearing: 11.08.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.11.2025 for the AY 2020-21. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the ground no.1 is against the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act rendering the consequential assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as nullity and invalid. Farman Sk; A.Y. 2020-21

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at ₹10,09,007/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2024, re

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 148

All 34,599 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →