Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal by the Revenue is against an order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act provided less than the mandatory 7 days for response, thus making the entire proceedings void ab initio. The notice was dated 24.03.2022, requiring a response by 30.03.2022.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to grant the statutory minimum of 7 days to the assessee for responding to the notice under Section 148A(b). Relying on jurisdictional High Court judgments, which established that a minimum 7-day period is mandatory, the Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated were vitiated due to insufficient notice period. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act granting less than 7 days for response is valid, and if such proceedings should be considered void ab initio based on judicial precedents.
Sections Cited
250, 148A(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the revenue is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 16th August, 2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067690434(1) and relates to assessment year 2018-19, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulaseedas Srinath Vs. ITO in WP No.14325 of 2024. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, annexed as annexure-1 to the synopsis is dated 24.3.2022 and the time granted
Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the orders of authorities below.
After considering rival submissions, we observe that the AO is not granted 7 days’ time to the assessee for responding in response to notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. In our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulaseedas Srinath Vs. ITO cited (supra), wherein it has been observed as under: “In light of the same, it is clear that not less than seven days ought to be provided for making out a reply to the notice.
4. The assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner that non- affording of time period of seven days has resulted in prejudice and violation of principles of natural justice requires acceptance, as it is noticed that the proceedings have been initiated in the absence of objections.
5. Accordingly, as the notices at Annexures-'A' and 'A1' itself are vitiated, the consequential orders and notices a/so require to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
7. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of Doddagarudanahalli Vyavasaya Seva Bank Niyamitha vs. Income Tax Officer [2025] 174 taxmann.com 864 wherein it was held that:
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a plain reading under Section 148 A(b) of the IT Act will indicate that the minimum statutory period prescribed therein is 7 days as he/d by this Court in the case of Janaki Aenuga as stated supra.
In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned notice will indicate that it was issued on n 03.2022 by granting time up to 25.03.2022 to the petitioner to submit his reply which Adhimoolam Shanti, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 clearly short of the minimum period of 7 days prescribed in the said provision and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned notice at Annexure B and consequential proceedings including the impugned assessment order notices etc., deserves to be quashed.”
Following the above verdict, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2025