U N COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,ADASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 789/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2015-164 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 17, 2022, requiring compliance by March 24, 2022, was indeed invalid. The Tribunal found that only seven days were provided for compliance, which is less than the statutory requirement of seven clear days. This view was supported by 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, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and also quashed the assessment order that was based on this invalid notice. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, U N College of SC 2 TECH, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The dispute arose from a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 17, 2022, requiring compliance by March 24, 2022. The assessee contended that this notice did not provide the mandatory seven days' time for compliance, rendering it invalid and consequently invalidating all subsequent proceedings. The revenue supported the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 17, 2022, requiring compliance by March 24, 2022, is invalid for failing to provide the statutory seven days' time for compliance, and if so, whether the consequent assessment proceedings are also invalid? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A(b)). Assessee's contentions: The notice issued under Section 148A(b) is invalid as it provided only seven days (March 17 to March 24, 2022) for compliance, which is less than the statutory requirement of seven clear days. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, are invalid. Revenue's contentions: The revenue vehemently supported the order of the 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 S.K.Agrawal, CA and Mrs Sarmila Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, ld CIT DR
Hearing: 06/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

1 ITA No.789/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.789/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 U N College of SC 2 TECH Vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Prachi, Jnanapitha, Adaspur, Bhubaneswar Cuttac-754 011 PAN/GIR No.AAATU 3304 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawal, CA and Mrs Sarmila Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, ld CIT 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 23.04.2025 in Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10291300 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri S.k.Agarwal and Mrs Sarmila Agrawal, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Rajeev Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

2 ITA No.789/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3. At the outset, ld AR invited our attention to the notice issued under clause (b) to Section 148A (b)of the Act dated 17.3.2022, which reads as under:

3 ITA No.789/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 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(b) did not provide the required 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148A(b) is dated 17.03.2022 and in the notice itself, it was directed to the assessee to comply by 24.3.2022, hence statutory 7 days’ time has not been provided to the assessee. It was the submission that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) is invalid and consequent proceedings are also invalid.

5.

In reply, the ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the AO. 6. 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 17.03.2022 and in the notice it was directed to the assessee to comply by 41.03.2022. 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. 7. 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

4 ITA No.789/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Cuttack ; Dated 06/10/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant: U N College of SC 2 TECH Prachi, Jnanapitha, Adaspur, Cuttac-754 011

2.

The Respondent: DCIT, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar 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 →