Massood Gulam Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
Conclusion: Reassessment notice issued to assessee by AO was quashed due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of providing a minimum of seven days for the taxpayer to furnish a reply under Section 148A(b).
Held: In the instant case, the issue arose for consideration was notice dated 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) for the Assessment Year 2019-20 calling upon assessee to submit his response / reply within a period of six days which was contrary to the prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b). Therefore, assessee contended that notice was illegal, invalid and inoperative and no proceedings pursuant thereto could have been taken by the respondent and the same deserved to be quashed It was noted by High Court that Notice at Annexure – A dated 21.03.2023 prescribed a period of six days, which was lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b). Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1) – W.P.No.15268/2023 dated 25.07.2023, the notice at Annexure – A and also consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserved to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondent to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.
