PRAWIN KUMAR, RANCHI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), RANCHI, RANCHI

Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.C. Marndi, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

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 22/03/2022 and the time given for compliance is 28/03/2022 which is less than the requisite seven days. It was a submission that under identical circumstances, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in WP(T) No. 2640/2023 dated 28/08/2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has in the case of Mantosh Kumar in ITA Prawin Kumar vs ITO No. 80/Ran/2024 dated 18/08/2025 has quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. It was a prayer that this reopening is also liable to be quashed.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar and the same has also been followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar referred to supra. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar, 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.