ALOK KHATUA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2019-20/10499078 dated 18.12.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARs, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.1 It was the submission that the said notice issued u/s 148A(b) is dated 22.03.2024 and the time given for responding is 29.03.2024. It Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prasanna Kumar Sethy vs. ITO in wherein on identical issue the Tribunal has held as under:

“2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the present appeal before the Tribunal the assessee is challenging the original assessment order itself insofar as the reopening is invalid. It was submission that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act is dated 07.03.2022 and the time given for responding is 14/03/2022. It was the submission that the statute requires that the notice should give at least 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the said notice did not give the assessee the requisite 7 days’ time and that the assessment proceedings were ex-parte proceedings. It was the submission that as seven clear days has not been granted to the assessee, in view of 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, the clear seven days having not been given to the assessee, the notice is liable to be treated as invalid. It was the submission that said decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has also been followed by the ITAT Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar, passed in dated 18.08.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in paras 3 to 7 as follows :- 3. It was 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 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.

3. You may, to the extent technologically, feasible, submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues 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.”

“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 consi deration 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.

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.

6. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

7. 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

4. It was the submission that as the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act was an invalid notice, the original assessment order itself is liable to be quashed.

6. It was the submission that the liberty must be granted to the revenue to initiate proceedings, if any, permissible under law.

7. We have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that clear 7 days has not been granted to the assessee in respect of the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. This notice is directly in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Satish Kumar referred to supra. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anuj Ghuliani (supra), shows that the issue therein was not a challenge to the time limit of 7 days. The issue was “conducting enquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice - initial notice allowing 5 days to reply - minimum 7 days required to be granted under the statue for the assessee to respond - assessee filing reply after 5 days - order and notice set aside with the direction to the AO to consider the reply filed by the assessee and passed appropriate orders.” The issue before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court admittedly is not in respect of not granting the assessee the 7 days required under the statue in respect of the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. That was a case where the assessee has claimed the adequate opportunity having not been provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the facts of that case has held that another opportunity should be granted to respond to the notice and the delayed response is to be considered. This view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has admittedly been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. These are admittedly not the facts in the appeal before us. As it is noticed that the issue of the limitation provided in the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act of providing minimum 7 days has been violated and the issue is fully covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Satish Kumar, referred to supra, 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 quashed and the assessment order based on the invalid notice also stands quashed.”

5. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of notice issued u/s 148A(b) clearly shows that the said notice was issued on 22.03.2024 and the time mentioned for responding of the notice is 29.03.2024. This being so and respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prasanna Kumar Sethy vs. ITO referred 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.

[Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: .03.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),