Dushant Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Five Days Cannot Be Stretched Into Seven — Short Notice u/s 148A(b) Knocks Out the Entire Reassessment
The Raipur ITAT has reiterated an important jurisdictional requirement governing reassessment proceedings — where section 148A(b) mandates “not less than seven days” for responding to the show-cause notice, the assessee must actually receive seven clear days, excluding both the date of issuance of notice & the date fixed for compliance. A notice which effectively grants only five clear days is invalid & the reassessment founded upon such notice cannot survive.
Notice Dated 15.03.2024 — Reply Required by 22.03.2024
The assessee challenged reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2020-21. The assessment had ultimately been completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B.
The fundamental jurisdictional objection raised before the ITAT was against the show-cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) dated 15.03.2024, which required the assessee to respond by 22.03.2024.
The assessee contended that after excluding the date of issuance & date of compliance, only five clear days remained for filing the response, whereas section 148A(b) mandatorily required a minimum of seven clear days. It was therefore argued that the notice itself was void ab initio, rendering the resultant reassessment liable to be quashed.
The actual notice reproduced at page 3 of the order also records its date as 15.03.2024 & requires the response “on or before 22/03/2024”.
“Not Less Than Seven Days” Means Seven Clear Days
The ITAT accepted the legal proposition that while computing the minimum statutory period, both terminal dates have to be excluded.
Thus, one cannot simply count 15th March to 22nd March & contend that seven days have been granted. Once the date on which the notice is issued & the last date fixed for compliance are excluded, the assessee was left with only five clear intervening days.
The Tribunal noted that this was contrary to the settled principle requiring seven clear days for response u/s 148A(b).
Karnataka HC — Seven-Day Requirement Is Mandatory
The ITAT relied upon its recent decision in DCIT v. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., which in turn considered several High Court decisions on the issue.
Of particular importance is the Karnataka High Court decision in PCCIT v. Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana, (2025) 307 Taxman 106 (Kar.), wherein it was held that where a notice u/s 148A(b) does not provide the assessee the minimum statutory period of seven days to respond, such notice is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal also referred to Bijendra Singh v. PCCIT, (2025) 478 ITR 493 (Raj.), wherein the Rajasthan High Court, following the Supreme Court decision in Pioneer Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Nagercoil, held that where the statutory expression is “not less than” a specified number of days, both terminal dates must be excluded while computing the prescribed period.
Supreme Court Principle — Both Terminal Days Must Go
The underlying principle emanates from Pioneer Motors, where the Supreme Court explained that when a statute requires a period of “not less than” a specified duration, a clear period must intervene.
In other words, the first day & the last day are excluded from computation.
Applying that principle to section 148A(b), the Rajasthan High Court had held that failure to provide seven clear days violates a mandatory statutory requirement, making the notice unsustainable.
The Raipur Bench also noted that the same view had been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Atul Mahavirprasad Paldecha v. ITO, (2025) 307 Taxman 331 (Guj.).
Consistent Tribunal View — Five Clear Days Are Not Enough
The ITAT further referred to Alok Khatua v. ITO, where the Cuttack Bench dealt with a notice dated 22.03.2024 requiring compliance by 29.03.2024. Even there, seven clear days were not available & the notice was held invalid.
The order also discussed Satish Kumar v. Pr. CIT of the Jharkhand High Court & Tribunal decisions following it. The principle emerging from these authorities was straightforward — minimum seven clear days have to be provided, ignoring the date of issue & the last date prescribed for response.
Where only five clear days were available, the notice u/s 148A(b) was held liable to be quashed & all subsequent proceedings became nullity & non est in the eyes of law.
Anuj Ghuliani Distinguished — Not Every Short-Time Case Is the Same
An important aspect of the order is the discussion of Anuj Ghuliani v. ITO, where the Delhi High Court had directed the AO to consider a belated response & reconsider the proceedings, a view subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal distinguished that decision because Anuj Ghuliani was not a challenge based on computation of the mandatory seven-day statutory period itself. It concerned inadequate opportunity & consideration of a belated reply.
By contrast, where the statutory minimum period itself is violated, the defect goes to the validity of the notice u/s 148A(b).
Result — Reassessment Falls With the Defective Notice
Following the above judicial precedents, the Raipur ITAT accepted the assessee’s jurisdictional challenge. The CIT(A)/NFAC order was set aside & the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The decision reinforces that the opportunity contemplated u/s 148A(b) is not an empty procedural ritual. When Parliament says “not less than seven days”, the AO cannot effectively grant five clear days & treat the statutory requirement as substantially complied with.
