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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 49/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the time provided for compliance with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was less than the seven days prescribed by the statute. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar, the notice was deemed bad in law and quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was dated 22/03/2022, with a compliance period of 28/03/2022.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, providing less than seven days for compliance, is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 06/01/2026Pronounced: 06/01/2026

Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 06/01/2026 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/2017-18/10240029 dated 09/01/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

6.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order announced in open court on 06/01/2026.

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →