BAIJAYANTI MEHER,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The primary issue in ITA No. 13/Ctk/2026 concerned the validity of a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice provided less than the statutory seven days for compliance.
Held
The Tribunal, following decisions of the Jharkhand High Court and coordinate benches, held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law because it provided less than the prescribed seven days for compliance. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provided less than seven days for compliance, is valid. Whether the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) is sustainable if the assessment order is quashed.
Sections Cited
148A(b), 147, 148, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 13 & 14/CTK/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baijayanti Meher, I.T.O., Flat No. 6, Mahamaya Enclave, VIP Ward-2(1), Vs. Area, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar-751013 (Odisha) PAN No. ARZPM 5106 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue
Assessee represented by Shri Somanath Sahoo, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10522626 dated 07/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 and in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10522627 dated 07/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 respectively. Firstly, we take up ITA No. 13/Ctk/2026, being the quantum appeal. 2. Shri Somanath Sahoo, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is on 17/03/2022 and the time given for compliance is 23/03/2022 which is less
ITA No. 13 & 14/Ctk/2026 Baijayanti Meher Vs ITO than the requisite seven days time. It was the submission that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act reads as follows:
It was the submission that under identical circumstances, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in WP(T) No. 2640/2023 dated 28/08/2023, the Coordinate Bench of the
ITA No. 13 & 14/Ctk/2026 Baijayanti Meher Vs ITO Ranchi Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar in ITA No. 80/Ran/2024 dated 18/08/2025 and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rashmi Ranjan Beura Vs ITO in ITA No. 722/Ctk/2025 order dated 17/02/2026 quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It was the prayer that the reopening is also liable to be quashed. 4. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the issue of the present case regarding issue of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra) and the same has also been followed by the Coordinate Bench of the Ranchi Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar (supra) and the order of this Tribunal in Rashmi Ranjan Beura Vs ITO referred to (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), as the time provided in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is less than the seven days prescribed by the statute, the notice issued is held to be bad in law and consequently stands quashed. As the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act stands quashed, the consequential assessment order also stands quashed. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Now we take up ITA No. 14/Ctk/2026, which is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs.14,27,239/- levied under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer.
ITA No. 13 & 14/Ctk/2026 Baijayanti Meher Vs ITO 8. Since, we have allowed the quantum appeal by quashing the impugned assessment order, therefore, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) has no legs to stand, consequently, we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack, Dated: 27/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack
