JOTRIMAYA PATI,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ANGUL, ANGUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 769/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2015-165 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, dated March 23, 2022, requiring compliance by March 30, 2022, is indeed invalid as it failed to provide the statutory seven days' time for compliance. The Tribunal found that only seven days were provided between the issuance of the notice and the compliance date, which is contrary to the statutory requirement. Following 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), the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and consequently quashed the assessment order based on this invalid notice. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued in violation of mandatory procedural requirements, such as the minimum time for compliance, renders the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jotrimaya Pati, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed 44 days late, and the assessee sought condonation of delay, citing lower back pain and physiotherapy treatment as reasons, supported by medical documents. The Tribunal condoned the delay. The core of the dispute arose from a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 23, 2022, which required compliance by March 30, 2022. The assessee contended that this notice did not provide the mandatory seven days' time for compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 23.03.2022, requiring compliance by 30.03.2022, is invalid for failing to provide the statutory seven days' time for compliance? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) is invalid because it did not provide the statutorily mandated seven days' time for compliance, as the notice was dated March 23, 2022, and compliance was demanded by March 30, 2022. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, are also invalid. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & G. GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Himansu Jena/P.K.Mishra and Ms Rajashree Routray, Advs
For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh ld Sr DR
Hearing: 06/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

1 ITA No.769/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G. GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.769/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jotrimaya Pati S/O. Tankadhar Vs. ITO, Ward, Angul. Pati, At- Turanga, Kurudola, Dist: Angul. PAN/GIR No.ARDPP2796G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Himansu Jena/P.K.Mishra and Ms Rajashree Routray, Advs Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 06/10/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2026

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 17.4.2026 in Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10266312 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. S/Shri Himansu Jena/P.K.Mishra and Ms Rajashree Routray, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. The appeal is barred by limitation by 44 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 5.10.2026 supported by affidavit, stating the reason for delay in filing that due to lower back pain, the appellant was advised by the doctor to take complete rest and treatment by physiotherapy regularly. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. In support of this, the assessee

2 ITA No.769/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 has filed medical certificate and prescription. After considering the condonation petition and other details, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause in filing the appeal delay. Hence, we condone the delay of 44 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. At the outset, ld AR invited our attention to the notice issued under clause (b) to Section 148A of the Act dated 23.3.2022, which reads as under:

3 ITA No.769/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

5.

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(b) did not provide the required 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148A(b) is dated 23.03.2022 and in the notice itself, it was directed to the assessee to comply by 30.3.2022, hence statutory 7 days’ time has not been provided to the assessee. It

4 ITA No.769/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 was the submission that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) is invalid and consequent proceedings are also invalid.

6.

In reply, the ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the AO. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the notice u/s 148A (b)was issued on 23.03.2022 and in the notice it was directed to the assessee to comply by 30.03.2022. Hence, statutory 7 days’ time has not been provided to the assessee. Therefore, 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(b) of the Act is held to be invalid and consequently is quashed and the assessment order based on the invalid notice also stands quashed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (G. GURUSAMY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 06/10/2026 RS

5 ITA No.769/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant: Jotrimaya Patim S/O. Tankadhar Pati, At- Turanga, Kurudola, Dist: Angul

2.

The respondent: ITO, Ward, Angul. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

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 →