LALITA DEVI, KORBA,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KORBA, KORBA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 718/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 October 2026AY 2019-209 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 24, 2023, which provided only 6 clear days for compliance, was invalid and void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the interpretation of 'not less than 7 days' by various judicial forums, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. Municipal Counsel, Nagrecoil, and the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, which mandate the exclusion of both the date of issuance and the date of compliance. Since the notice was invalid, any subsequent assessment order passed pursuant to it was also quashed and considered non-est in law. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in similar cases.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Lalita Devi, has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-20. The core of the dispute revolves around a show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contends that this notice, dated February 24, 2023, which sought compliance by March 3, 2023, provided only 6 clear days, violating the statutory requirement of 'not less than 7 days'. The Revenue argued that 7 days were provided, making the notice valid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 24, 2023, which provided only 6 clear days for compliance (from February 24, 2023, to March 3, 2023), is void ab initio for not adhering to the mandatory 'not less than 7 days' requirement? Assessee's contention: The notice is violative of Section 148A(b) as it does not provide a clear 7 days, excluding the date of notice and compliance date. Therefore, it is void ab initio and cannot initiate a valid assessment order. Revenue's contention: The notice provided 7 days for compliance, making it valid.

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, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.10.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 07.07.2026 for the assessment year 2019-20 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The contention in law assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’ is violative of the provision itself since the said show cause notice does not provide the assessee a clear cut 7 days time excluding the date of notice and date of compliance sought for from the assessee, therefore, such notice being void ab initio cannot set in motion a valid order of assessment and is liable to be quashed.

3.

In this regard, relevant notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, dated 24.02.2023 is extracted as follows:

3 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

4 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

4.

The date of notice is 24.02.2023 and date on which compliance sought for from the assessee is 03.03.2023 and in between, there is only 6 clear days time. However, Section 148A(b) of the Act provides that “being not less than 7 days”, which has been interpreted by various judicial forums that clear cut 7 days time has to be given to the assessee excluding the date of notice and date of compliance of the assessee. In the present case, as evident clear cut 6 days time only given to the assessee and hence, such notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act is invalid and bad in law.

5.

I find that similar issue has been dealt with by this Bench in favour of the assessee and against Revenue recently in the case of DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd, ITA Nos.88 to 91/RPR/2025, dated 06.08.2026 wherein it was held and observed as follows: “60. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) on 16.03.2022 is void ab initio. He submitted that the notice called for a response on or before 23.03.2022 which does not constitute a clear 7 days as required by the mandatory provisions of section 148A(b). He submitted that the statutory mandate requires a period of ‘not less than seven days’ to be provided for compliance. He submitted that in computing this period, both the date of issuance and the date of compliance must be excluded. Consequently the jurisdictional notice is rendered void and all subsequent proceedings emanating from it are a ‘nullity and non-est in the eyes of law’. 61. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCCIT vs. Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana reported in (2025) 307 Taxman 106 (Kar), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where impugned notice issued u/s 148A(b) did not provide the assessee minimum statutory period of seven days to respond, same was rightly quashed. 62. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bijendra Singh vs. PCCIT reported in (2025) 478 ITR 493

5 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

(Raj), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. Municipal Counsel, Nagrecoil reported in AIR 1967 SC 684 has held that both the terminal dates have to be excluded for the purpose of complying with the requirement of words ‘not less than .. days”. 63. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 16.03.2022 asking the assessee to submit its details on or before 23.03.2022. Thus, a period of 7 days have been given. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are liable to be rejected and the notice issued is to be held as valid notice. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer issued a notice under clause (b) of section 148A on 16.03.2022 by asking the assessee to submit the details in the portal on or before 23.03.2022, the details of which are as under:

6 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

65.

Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether a period of 7 days as mandated by the provisions of section 148A(b) are fulfilled or not. We find an identical issue had come up before Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bijendra Singh vs. PCCIT (supra). The Hon’ble High Court in the said decision while deciding the aspect of calculating the days in a case where the provision requires a notice of ‘not less than particular days’, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer

7 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. Municipal Council (supra) has observed as under: “10. Section 148A(b) of the Act requires providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving upon him/her notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice being 'not less than seven days' but not exceeding thirty days from the date, on which such notice is issued. 11. The aspect of calculating the days in a case where the provision requires a notice of 'not less than particular days', has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. The Municipal Council, Nagrecoil : AIR 1967 SC 684, wherein it has, inter-alia, been laid down as under: "The words "not being less than one month" do imply that clear one month's notice was necessary to be given, that is, both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. To put it in the language used by Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, p. 351 :- "..when........ 'not less than' so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation." 12. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that both the terminal days have to be excluded for the purpose of complying with the requirement of words 'not less than .... days ". Admittedly, in the present case, the notice dated 16.03.2022 was issued/posted on 17.03.2022 and the date fixed for response was 23.03.2022. Excluding two days i.e. the date of sending of the notice as well the last date indicated, even if the notice was received by the petitioner, the same falls short of seven days' period, as envisaged by provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act; and as such, for violation of mandatory provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the notice issued to the petitioner cannot be sustained.” 66. We find the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCCIT vs. Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana (supra) has held that where impugned notice issued u/s 148A(b) did not provide the assessee minimum statutory period of seven days to respond, the same is liable to be quashed. 67. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Atul Mahavirprasad Paldecha vs. ITO reported in (2025) 307 Taxman 331 (Guj). Since in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not given the mandatory period of clear 7 days for replying to the notice issued under clause (b) of section

8 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

148A, therefore, such notice being not in accordance with law is liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 16.03.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same is quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the appeal filed by the Revenue becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed. 68. In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed”

Similar view has been held by this Bench in the cases of Atal 6. Agrawal Vs. ITO-1, Raigarh (C.G.), ITA No.231/RPR/2026, A.Y.2018- 19, dated 03.09.2026 and Kaizen Motoventures Private Limited Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.), ITA No. 409/RPR/2026, dated 22.09.2026.

7.

Resultantly, following the same parity of reasoning and upon examination of the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, I hold that the said notice being non-compliant of the said legal provision itself is invalid, void ab initio and such invalid, void ab initio notice cannot give rise to a valid assessment order. Hence, the assessment order in pursuant of such void ab initio notice is therefore, quashed. That all other subsequent proceedings are non-est as per law. Rest other grounds stands academic only.

9 Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ITA No.718/RPR/2026

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 26th day of October, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 26th October, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, SAMIRA Digitally signed by // True Copy // SAMIRAN BERA N BERA Date: 2026.10.26 Senior Private Secretary 14:41:07 +05'30' आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

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 →