ITO Vs Praveena Kumari (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the issue was already covered by its earlier decision in W.A. No. 1141/2026 dated 17.04.2026. The case concerned the validity of a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, where the assessee was granted less than the minimum period of seven days to respond.
The Revenue argued that since Section 148A permits extension of the compliance period up to thirty days, the initial grant of less than seven days was only directory and did not affect the jurisdiction to issue the notice. It contended that the notice should not be invalidated solely because the minimum seven-day period had not been provided.
The High Court rejected this contention by following its earlier Division Bench judgment in Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna, which held that a notice under Section 148A(b) is unsustainable if it grants less than seven days for compliance. The Court noted that the learned Single Judge had correctly relied on the earlier Division Bench ruling in setting aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b).
The Court further held that once the notice under Section 148A(b) is set aside, all consequential proceedings, including the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, and the related penalty notices, also become unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
