Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. There was a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, gave less than seven days for compliance.
Held
The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and a coordinate bench, held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law because the compliance period was less than the statutory seven days. 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, is valid when the compliance period provided is less than seven days.
Sections Cited
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
Assessee represented by Shri Aditya Shah, 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/2017-18/110243377dated 17/01/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
Shri Aditya Shah, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.C. Marndi, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
There is a delay of 12 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed necessary petition for condonation of delay. Considering the meagerness of the delay and the reasons given by the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits.
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 15/03/2022 and the time given for compliance is 17/03/2022 which is less than Sunil Kumar vs ITO 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 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.