Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Jharkhand State Bar Council, appealed against a CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2018-19. The core issue was the validity of a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 22/03/2022, which allowed the assessee to file a response by 29/03/2022. The assessee contended that this notice was invalid as it provided less than the mandatory seven clear days for response required by Section 148A(b) of the Act.
Held
The tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the clear seven days for response as mandated by law. Following the precedents set by the Coordinate Bench and the Jurisdictional High Court (Satish Kumar Vs Pr.CIT), the tribunal held the notice under Section 148A(b) to be invalid and quashed it. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act was also quashed.
Key Issues
Whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, providing less than the mandatory seven clear days for response, is valid, and consequently, whether the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 is sustainable.
Sections Cited
Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Chowdhary, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10234810 dated 12/11/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
Shri M.K. Chowdhary, ld. AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is challenging the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 22/03/2022 wherein the assessee has been asked to file his response by 29/03/2022. It was a submission that this notice is invalid in so far as the assessee has not been given seven days time as required under the provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act issued which reads as follows:
It was a submission that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar Vs ACIT in dated 18/08/2025 had following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs Pr.CIT in WP(T) No. 2640 of 2023 dated 28/08/2023 wherein it has been 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)
Jharkhand State Bar Council Vs ITO 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 Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed in 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 relevant assessment year and 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 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.
Considering the aforestated 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