HARENDRA NATH PATRA,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 860/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 October 2026AY 2016-177 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 invalid. The notice dated March 23, 2023, with a compliance date of March 30, 2023, did not provide the statutory minimum of seven clear days for the assessee to respond. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the coordinate bench in *Imran Ahmad* (supra), which in turn relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in *Satish Kumar* (supra). The High Court's decision stipulated that a minimum of seven clear days, excluding the date of issuance and the date of response, must be provided. As this was not met, the notice under Section 148A(b) was quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, which was based on the invalid notice, was also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harendra Nath Patra, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal arose from proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid because it did not provide the statutory minimum of seven days for compliance. The notice was dated March 23, 2023, with a compliance date of March 30, 2023, which the assessee argued gave only five clear days. The assessee relied on judicial precedents that held such notices to be invalid, rendering subsequent proceedings void. The revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, supported the Assessing Officer's order.

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 assessee with the statutory minimum of seven clear days for compliance? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148A(b)) Assessee's contentions: - The notice dated March 23, 2023, requiring compliance by March 30, 2023, did not provide the mandatory seven clear days as stipulated in Section 148A(b). - This violation renders the notice invalid and all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, null and void. - Relied on the decision in *Satish Kumar vs. Pr. CIT* (Jharkhand High Court) and *Imran Ahmad vs. ITO* (ITAT Ranchi Bench), which followed the High Court's ruling. Revenue's contentions: - The ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 07/10/2026Pronounced: 07/10/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)] in Appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10318796 dated 24/07/2026 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Somanath Sahoo, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

At the outset, the ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued 3. u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.03.2023 and date of compliance was fixed on 30.03.2023, the same reads as under:

2 3

4.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that the notice issued u/s 148A did not provide the required 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148A is dated 23.03.2023 and in the notice itself, it was directed to the assessee to comply by 30.03.2023, hence statutory 7 days’ time has not been provided to the assessee. It was the submission that the notice issued u/s 148A is invalid and consequent proceedings are also invalid.

4.

1 It was the submission that said decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has also been followed by the ITAT Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar, passed in ITA No.80/Ran/2024, dated 18.08.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in paras 3 to 7 as follows :- “3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is challenging the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the assessee has been asked to file his response by 21.3.2022. It was the submission that this order is invalid insofar as the assessee has not been given seven days time as required under the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is as follows: “Notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sir/Madam/M.s Whereas I have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2018-19 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The details of the information and enquiry, if conducted, are enclosed with this notice in Annexure-A.

2.

You are requested to show cause as to why, in view of the details contained in Annexure-A, a notice u/s.148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 should not be issued.

3.

You may, to the extent technologically, feasible, submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues electronically in e-proceedings

4 facility through your account in-e-filing portal at your convenience on or before 21.3.2022. 4. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Dhanbad, accorded on date 11.3.2022 vide reference No.100000029037826.”

4.

It was the submission that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Imran Ahmad vs ITO, Giridih in ITA No.357/Ran/2024 order dated 18.12.2024 relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed I n W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023, held as follows:

“5. The entire periphery and ambit of the legal ground is confined to the interpretation of expression “being not less than 7 days…” That as demonstrated by the assessee the notice dated 12th March, 2022 u/s.148A of the Act states that the assessee shall submit the response with supporting documents on or before 18th March, 2022. Therefore, as per section 148A(b) of the Act, excluding these two das ie. Date of issuance of the notice and the date on when response is sought from the assessee, a clear 7 days time should have been provided to the assessee as has been held by the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed I n W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as follows:

7.

To decide the lis involved in the instant application it is necessary to peruse the provisions of the Act which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:- Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. "148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a);" From bare perusal of Section 148A(b) it appears that minimum 7 days is required to be given to the Assessee for filing reply. This 7 day is to be calculated by ignoring the date of issue and the last date of submission. In other words, minimum 7 clear days has to be provided to the Assessee for filing reply. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pioneer Motors (Private )Ltd. Vs Muncipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 sc 684, wherein at paragraph 8 & 9, the Hon'ble

5 Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regard to counting of dates. “8. The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one months’s notice was necessary to be given that is both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. "When……. 'not less than' so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation". 9. ………………….. In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consideration the language used and the object to be achieved. As we have said above, the use of the words "not being less than one month" implies the giving of a clear month excluding both the first and the last day of the month Emphasis supplied.

6.

Considering the aforesaid judgment as per the notice issued to `the assessee u/s.148A of the Act, the assessee gets only five clear days for response i.e. excluding the date of issuance of the notice and the date on which the response is sought for. This is, therefore, violative of the mandate as prescribed in the Act and also as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court (supra). Therefore, on this score alone, the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings becomes a nullity and non est in the eyes of law.”

5.

It was the submission that as in this notice seven days time excluding the date of issue of notice and the date of response has not been provided to the assessee, the notice u/s.148A (b) is liable to be quashed.

6.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act has not been provided to the assessee the clear seven days time for responding the said notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Imran Ahmad (supra), wherein, the Bench has followed the 5 ITA No.722/CTK/2025 judgment of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar(supra), the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act stands quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act stands quashed.

5.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the notice u/s 148A was issued on 23.03.2023 and in the notice it was directed to the 6 assessee to comply by 30.03.2023, hence statutory 7 days’ clear time has not been provided to the assessee, notice issued u/s 148A(b) itself is found to be invalid. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023. This being so and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar referred to supra, the notice issued u/s 148A of the Act is held to be invalid and consequently is quashed and the assessment order based on the invalid notice also stands quashed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2026. GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 05/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रधतधलधपअग्रेधर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदि, आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file.

7 सत्यादपतप्रदत ////

आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →