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.
Author’s Comment
This ruling offers a simple but powerful reassessment check — count the days before arguing the merits. For computing the minimum period u/s 148A(b), exclude the date of notice & the date fixed for response. What must remain in between are seven clear days.
More importantly, the defect is not merely about violation of natural justice capable of being routinely cured by giving another opportunity. On the authorities followed in this order, failure to provide the mandatory minimum statutory period strikes at the validity of the notice itself.
In short, five clear days cannot become seven merely because the calendar shows a seven-day gap — & when the foundation notice falls, the reassessment built upon it falls with it.
Cases Discussed
- DCIT-1(1), Raipur v. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. — ITA Nos. 88 to 91/RPR/2025, dated 06.08.2026: The Raipur Bench held that a notice under Section 148A(b) must provide seven clear days and quashed a notice that failed to satisfy the statutory requirement.
- PCCIT v. Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana — (2025) 307 Taxman 106 (Kar.): The Karnataka High Court held that failure to provide the minimum seven-day period under Section 148A(b) renders the notice liable to be quashed.
- Bijendra Singh v. PCCIT — (2025) 478 ITR 493 (Raj.): The Rajasthan High Court, following Pioneer Motors, held that both terminal dates are excluded when calculating a statutory period expressed as “not less than” a specified number of days.
- Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Nagercoil — AIR 1967 SC 684: The Supreme Court laid down the principle that where “not less than” a specified number of days are required to intervene, both terminal days are excluded from computation.
- Atul Mahavirprasad Paldecha v. ITO — (2025) 307 Taxman 331 (Guj.): The Gujarat High Court was referred to for the same principle concerning the minimum statutory response period under Section 148A(b).
- Alok Khatua v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack — ITA No. 154/CTK/2026, dated 16.03.2026: The Cuttack Bench held a Section 148A(b) notice invalid where the assessee was not provided seven clear days and quashed the consequential assessment.
- Satish Kumar v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax — W.P.(T) No. 2640 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023: The Jharkhand High Court decision relied upon for the mandatory seven-clear-day requirement under Section 148A(b).
- Imran Ahmad v. ITO, Giridih — ITA No. 357/Ran/2024, dated 18.12.2024: The ITAT Ranchi Bench followed the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Satish Kumar and held that failure to provide seven clear days invalidated the Section 148A(b) notice.
- Mantosh Kumar v. ITO — ITA No. 80/Ran/2024, dated 18.08.2025: The ITAT Ranchi Bench followed the principle that failure to provide seven clear days invalidates the Section 148A(b) notice and consequential assessment.
- Prasanna Kumar Sethy v. ITO — ITA No. 721/CTK/2025: The Cuttack Bench decision relied upon in Alok Khatua on the validity of a Section 148A(b) notice granting less than seven clear days.
- Anuj Ghuliani v. ITO — 478 ITR 526 (Delhi-HC); [2025] 478 ITR 528 (SC): Distinguished because the issue there concerned consideration of a belated response and adequate opportunity, rather than the computation of the mandatory seven-day period itself.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.05.2026 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. The contention in law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the jurisdictional A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur had erred in issuing show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 15.03.2024 by allowing only a period 5 days to assessee for response excluding the date of issuance of notice and the date of compliance which is in contravention of the mandatory minimum time limit of clear cut 7 days, therefore, since notice itself is void ab initio, resultantly, reassessment order is liable to be quashed. The relevant notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, dated 15.03.2024 is extracted as follows:
3. The date of notice is 15.03.2024 and date of compliance is
22.03.2024, therefore, in between there is only 5 days time for response from assessee which is in contravention of the settled legal principle that clear cut 7 days time has to be provided to the assessee excluding the date of issuance of notice and the date of compliance.
4. I find that similar issue has been dealt with by this Bench recently in the case of DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd, ITA
Nos.88 to 91/RPR/2025, dated 06.08.2026 wherein it was held and observed as follows:
“60. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) on 16.03.2022 is void ab initio. He submitted that the notice called for a response on or before 23.03.2022 which does not constitute a clear 7 days as required by the mandatory provisions of section 148A(b). He submitted that the statutory mandate requires a period of ‘not less than seven days’ to be provided for compliance. He submitted that in computing this period, both the date of issuance and the date of compliance must be excluded. Consequently the jurisdictional notice is rendered void and all subsequent proceedings emanating from it are a ‘nullity and non-est in the eyes of law’.
61. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCCIT vs. Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana reported in (2025) 307 Taxman 106 (Kar), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where impugned notice issued u/s 148A(b) did not provide the assessee minimum statutory period of seven days to respond, same was rightly quashed.
62. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bijendra Singh vs. PCCIT reported in (2025) 478 ITR 493 (Raj), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. Municipal Counsel, Nagrecoil reported in AIR 1967 SC 684 has held that both the terminal dates have to be excluded for the purpose of complying with the requirement of words ‘not less than.. days”.
63. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 16.03.2022 asking the assessee to submit its details on or before 23.03.2022. Thus, a period of 7 days have been given. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are liable to be rejected and the notice issued is to be held as valid notice.
64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer issued a notice under clause (b) of section 148A on 16.03.2022 by asking the assessee to submit the details in the portal on or before 23.03.2022, the details of which are as under:
65. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether a period of 7 days as mandated by the provisions of section 148A(b) are fulfilled or not. We find an identical issue had come up before Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bijendra Singh vs. PCCIT (supra). The Hon’ble High Court in the said decision while deciding the aspect of calculating the days in a case where the provision requires a notice of ‘not less than particular days’, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. Municipal Council (supra) has observed as under:
“10. Section 148A(b) of the Act requires providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving upon him/her notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice being ‘not less than seven days’ but not exceeding thirty days from the date, on which such notice is issued.
11. The aspect of calculating the days in a case where the provision requires a notice of ‘not less than particular days’, has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. vs. The Municipal Council, Nagrecoil: AIR 1967 SC 684, wherein it has, inter-alia, been laid down as under:
“The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one month’s notice was necessary to be given, that is, both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. To put it in the language used by Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, p. 351:-
“..when…….. ‘not less than’ so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation.”
12. It has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that both the terminal days have to be excluded for the purpose of complying with the requirement of words ‘not less than…. days “. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice dated 16.03.2022 was issued/posted on 17.03.2022 and the date fixed for response was 23.03.2022. Excluding two days i.e. the date of sending of the notice as well the last date indicated, even if the notice was received by the petitioner, the same falls short of seven days’ period, as envisaged by provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act; and as such, for violation of mandatory provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the notice issued to the petitioner cannot be sustained.”
66. We find the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCCIT vs. Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana (supra) has held that where impugned notice issued u/s 148A(b) did not provide the assessee minimum statutory period of seven days to respond, the same is liable to be quashed.
67. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Atul Mahavirprasad Paldecha vs. ITO reported in (2025) 307 Taxman 331 (Guj). Since in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not given the mandatory period of clear 7 days for replying to the notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A, therefore, such notice being not in accordance with law is liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 16.03.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same is quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the appeal filed by the Revenue becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed.”
5. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Cuttack in the case of Alok Khatua Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack, ITA No.154/CTK/2026, order dated 16.03.2026 has held and observed as follows:
“3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act 22.03.2024, which reads as under:
3.1 It was the submission that the said notice issued u/s 148A(b) is dated 22.03.2024 and the time given for responding is 29.03.2024. It was the submission that the assessee has not been granted clear seven days in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prasanna Kumar Sethy vs. ITO in ITA No.721/CTK/2025, wherein on identical issue the Tribunal has held as under:
“2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the present appeal before the Tribunal the assessee is challenging the original assessment order itself insofar as the reopening is invalid. It was submission that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act is dated 07.03.2022 and the time given for responding is 14/03/2022. It was the submission that the statute requires that the notice should give at least 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the said notice did not give the assessee the requisite 7 days’ time and that the assessment proceedings were ex-parte proceedings. It was the submission that as seven clear days has not been granted to the assessee, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023, the clear seven days having not been given to the assessee, the notice is liable to be treated as invalid. It was the submission that said decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has also been followed by the ITAT Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar, passed in ITA No.80/Ran/2024, dated 18.08.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in paras 3 to 7 as follows:-
3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is challenging the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the assessee has been asked to file his response by 21.3.2022. It was the submission that this order is invalid insofar as the assessee has not been given seven days time as required under the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is as follows:
“Notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sir/Madam/M.s Whereas I have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2018-19 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The details of the information and enquiry, if conducted, are enclosed with this notice in Annexure-A.
2. You are requested to show cause as to why, in view of the details contained in Annexure-A, a notice u/s.148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 should not be issued.
3. You may, to the extent technologically, feasible, submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues electronically in e-proceedings facility through your account in-e-filing portal at your convenience on or before 21.3.2022.
4. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Dhanbad, accorded on date 11.3.2022 vide reference No.100000029037826.”
4. It was the submission that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Imran Ahmad vs ITO, Giridih in ITA No.357/Ran/2024 order dated 18.12.2024 relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed I n W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023, held as follows:
“5. The entire periphery and ambit of the legal ground is confined to the interpretation of expression “being not less than 7 days…” That as demonstrated by the assessee the notice dated 12th March, 2022 u/s.148A of the Act states that the assessee shall submit the response with supporting documents on or before 18th March, 2022. Therefore, as per section 148A(b) of the Act, excluding these two days i.e. Date of issuance of the notice and the date on when response is sought from the assessee, a clear 7 days time should have been provided to the assessee as has been held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed I n W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as follows:
7. To decide the lis involved in the instant application it is necessary to peruse the provisions of the Act which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:-
Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act.
“148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a);”
From bare perusal of Section 148A(b) it appears that minimum 7 days is required to be given to the Assessee for filing reply. This 7 day is to be calculated by ignoring the date of issue and the last date of submission. In other words, minimum 7 clear days has to be provided to the Assessee for filing reply.
In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pioneer Motors (Private)Ltd. Vs Muncipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 sc 684, wherein at paragraph 8 & 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regard to counting of dates.
“8. The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one months’s notice was necessary to be given that is both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded.
“When……. ‘not less than’ so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation”.
9. ………………….. In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consi deration the language used and the object to be achieved. As we have said above, the use of the words “not being less than one month” implies the giving of a clear month excluding both the first and the last day of the month Emphasis supplied.
6. Considering the aforesated judgment as per the notice issued to `the assessee u/s.148A of the Act, the assessee gets only five clear days for response i.e. excluding the date of issuance of the notice and the date on which the response is sought for. This is, therefore, violative of the mandate as prescribed in the Act and also as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court (supra). Therefore, on this score alone, the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings becomes a nullity and non est in the eyes of law.”
5. It was the submission that as in this notice seven days time excluding the date of issue of notice and the date of response has not been provided to the assessee, the notice u/s.148A (b) is liable to be quashed.
6. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.
7. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act has not been provided to the assessee the clear seven days time for responding the said notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Imran Ahmad (supra), wherein, the Bench has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar(supra), the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act stands quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act stands quashed.
3. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act, which reads as follows:-
4. It was the submission that as the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act was an invalid notice, the original assessment order itself is liable to be quashed.
5. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuj Ghuliani vs. ITO, reported in [2025] 478 ITR 528 (SC) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anuj Ghuliani, reported in 478 ITR 526 (Delhi-HC) to submit that
wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that the proceedings are to be reconsidered by the AO after considering the belated reply filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as follows:-
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside. The AO shall consider the reply already filed by the petitioner on 27.08.2024 and pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks. In the event the AO considers that it is a fit case for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, necessary approval shall be obtained from the concerned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as was the requirement at the material time.
6. It was the submission that the liberty must be granted to the revenue to initiate proceedings, if any, permissible under law.
7. We have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that clear 7 days has not been granted to the assessee in respect of the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. This notice is directly in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Satish Kumar referred to supra. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anuj Ghuliani (supra), shows that the issue therein was not a challenge to the time limit of 7 days. The issue was “conducting enquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – initial notice allowing 5 days to reply – minimum 7 days required to be granted under the statue for the assessee to respond – assessee filing reply after 5 days – order and notice set aside with the direction to the AO to consider the reply filed by the assessee and passed appropriate orders.” The issue before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court admittedly is not in respect of not granting the assessee the 7 days required under the statue in respect of the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. That was a case where the assessee has claimed the adequate opportunity having not been provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the facts of that case has held that another opportunity should be granted to respond to the notice and the delayed response is to be considered. This view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has admittedly been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. These are admittedly not the facts in the appeal before us. As it is noticed that the issue of the limitation provided in the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act of providing minimum 7 days has been violated and the issue is fully covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Satish Kumar, referred to supra, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar, referred to supra, the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act is held to be invalid and consequently quashed and the assessment order based on the invalid notice also stands quashed.”
5. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of notice issued u/s 148A(b) clearly shows that the said notice was issued on 22.03.2024 and the time mentioned for responding of the notice is 29.03.2024. This being so and respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prasanna Kumar Sethy vs. ITO referred supra, the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act is held to be invalid and consequently is quashed and the assessment order based on the invalid notice also stands quashed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
6. Respectfully, following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and upon examination of the facts and relevant documents, on the same parity of reasoning, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 1st day of September, 2026.
