Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C for Assessment Year 2018-19, specifically contesting the validity of a notice issued u/s 148A(b) dated March 14, 2022. The notice required a response by March 21, 2022, which the assessee argued did not provide the statutory minimum of 'not less than seven days' clear time for response.
Held
Following judicial precedents, including a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and a Co-ordinate Bench, the Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148A(b) was invalid as it failed to provide the mandatory clear seven days for response. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed both the defective notice and the subsequent assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144.
Key Issues
Whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to provide the assessee with the statutory minimum of 'not less than seven days' clear time to respond, thereby rendering the subsequent assessment order void.
Sections Cited
147, 144C, 148A(b), 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN & RATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mantosh Kumar, C/O Sri Mantosh Kumar, C/O Sri Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner of of Surendra Singh, Flat No.VA Surendra Singh, Flat No.VA- Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), 12, 12, Block Block A.Vaikshnavi A.Vaikshnavi Kolakata Apartment, Apartment, Chira Chira Chas, Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand Bokaro, Jharkhand PAN/GIR No. .BWTPM 1034 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv and Dr Bhanu Giri Assessee by Devesh Poddar, Adv and Dr Bhanu Giri Revenue by Revenue by : Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 18/08/202 2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 31.1.2024. of the Act r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 31.1.2024. of the Act r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 31.1.2024.
2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv and Dr Bhanu Giri Devesh Poddar, Adv and Dr Bhanu Giri, ld ARs appeared for the appeared for the assessee. Shri assessee. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is challenging the notice as submitted by ld AR that the assessee is challenging the notice as submitted by ld AR that the assessee is challenging the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the assessee has been u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the assessee has been u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the assessee has been P a g e 1 | 5 asked to file his response by 21.3.2022. It was the submission that this order is invalid insofar as the assessee has not been given seven days time as required under the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is as follows:
“Notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sir/Madam/M.s Whereas I have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2018-19 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The details of the information and enquiry, if conducted, are enclosed with this notice in Annexure-A.
You are requested to show cause as to why, in view of the details contained in Annexure-A, a notice u/s.148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 should not be issued.
3. You may, to the extent technologically, feasible, submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues electronically in e-proceedings facility through your account in-e-filing portal at your convenience on or before 21.3.2022.
4. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Dhanbad, accorded on date 11.3.2022 vide reference No.100000029037826.”
It was the submission that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Imran Ahmad vs ITO, Giridih in order dated 18.12.2024 relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed I n W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023, 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 P a g e 2 | 5 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) 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 I n 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". ...........................................
P a g e 3 | 5
....................... 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. 6. Considering the aforesat5ed judgment as per the notice issued tro `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 u/s.148A(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings becomes a nullity and non est in the eyes of law.” 5. It was the submission that as in this notice seven days time excluding the date of issue of notice and the date of response has not been provided to the assessee, the notice u/s.148A (b) is liable to be quashed.
In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act has not been provided to the assessee the clear seven days time for responding the said notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Imran Ahmad (supra), wherein, the Bench has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar(supra), the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act stands quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act stands quashed.
P a g e 4 | 5
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 18/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Mantosh Kumar, C/O Sri Surendra Singh, Flat No.VA-12, Block A.Vaikshnavi Apartment, Chira Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand 2. The respondent; Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Kolakata 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi
P a g e 5 | 5