Karnataka High Court Reiterates: Notice Under Section 148A(b) Granting Less Than Seven Days for Reply Is Unsustainable

ITO Vs Smt. Ramegowda Chandrakala (Karnataka High Court)

Karnataka High Court Reiterates: Notice Under Section 148A(b) Granting Less Than Seven Days for Reply Is Unsustainable

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s writ appeal, holding that the issue was fully covered by its earlier Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1141/2026. The Revenue argued that the requirement of granting a minimum of seven days to respond to a notice under Section 148A(b) was merely directory, as the Assessing Officer could extend the period for compliance up to thirty days.

Rejecting this contention, the Court reaffirmed that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) allowing less than seven days for compliance is invalid in law. Once the foundational notice is held to be unsustainable, all consequential proceedings-including the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144, and the penalty notices issued under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d)-also become unsustainable. As the facts of the present case were identical to those considered in the earlier Division Bench decision, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Heard learned counsel Sri.Thirumalesh M appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.S V Ravishankar appearing for the respondent.

2. Both learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the issue and substantial question of law raised in the above appeal are considered in W.A.No.1141/2026 disposed of on 17.04.2026 and relevant paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 7 reads as follows:

“3. The brief facts are that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The said notice was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the minimum period of seven days was not granted and, therefore, the same was unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.612 of 2025 in the case of Income Tax Officer and ors. v. Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna, set aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under Section 148A(d), the notice issued under Section 148, the assessment made under Section 147 read with Section 144, and also the penalty notices issued under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

4. Smt. Niyathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri M. Thirumalesh, learned standing counsel for the appellant Revenue, submits that where the time limit provided for compliance with the notice is less than seven days, and the same being extendable, the grant of a minimum period of seven days is not mandatory. It is contended that the notice has been set aside as though the grant of a period of less than seven days would affect the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148A provides for extension of time up to thirty days and, therefore, the minimum period of seven days is not mandatory but only directory.

7. The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.A No.612 of 2025 in the case of Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna (supra), disposed of on 05.08.2025, wherein it was held that a notice under Section 148A(b) would be unsustainable if the period provided for compliance is less than seven days. The learned Single Judge, following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, has set aside the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Once the notice is set aside, all consequential orders and notices would also become unsustainable”.

3. The present appeal also involves identical facts and circumstances. In terms of the order dated 17.04.2026 in W.A.No.1141/2026, the present appeal also stands dismissed.

Pending Interlocutory Application/s, if any, stands disposed of.