Mantosh Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi)
Summary: The ITAT Ranchi held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid as the assessee was not provided the mandatory seven clear days to respond.
The notice dated 14.03.2022 required the assessee to file his response by 21.03.2022. Excluding the date of issuance and the last date prescribed for response, the assessee was not granted seven clear days. The Tribunal followed its Coordinate Bench decision in Imran Ahmad Vs. ITO, which had relied upon the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Satish Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT.
The Tribunal also relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil, that where the statutory language requires “not less than” a specified number of days, both terminal dates are excluded from computation.
Following these decisions, the Tribunal held that the Section 148A(b) notice was invalid and quashed it. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was also quashed. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
- Imran Ahmad Vs. ITO, Giridih — ITA No. 357/Ran/2024, order dated 18.12.2024.
- Satish Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT — W.P.(T) No. 2640 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023.
- Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil — AIR 1967 SC 684.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RANCHI
This is an the passed u/s.147 of appeal filed by assessee against the assessment order of the Act r.w.s. 144C the Act dated 31.1.2024.
2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv and Dr Bhanu Giri , ld ARs appeared for the assessee. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
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 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 das ie. 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 consideration 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 aforesat5ed judgment as per the notice issued tro `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.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/08/2025.
