Sulabha Ramesh Ganorkar Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
Assessee filed appeal against order of CIT(A) which had upheld reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B making additions of Rs.11,03,500/- as unexplained u/s 69A & Rs.56,666/- as unexplained accrued interest on FDR.
Before Tribunal, Assessee challenged validity of reopening on the ground that notice u/s 148A(b) dt 23.03.2022 provided only 6 days to respond (till 29.03.2022) instead of the mandatory 7 clear days, thereby vitiating entire proceedings. Reliance was placed on Bombay HC in Samadha Corporation Vs ITO (WP 2154/2022), Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs ITO (WP 15268/2023) & Calcutta HC in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia Vs UOI (MAT 727/2022), where notices giving less than 7 days were quashed.
Tribunal observed that as per settled law, minimum 7 clear days must be granted under s.148A(b), excluding the date of issue. Since notice issued on 23.03.2022 allowed time only upto 29.03.2022, clear 7 days were not provided. Following binding precedents, Tribunal quashed notice u/s 148A(b), subsequent notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 & assessment order dated 28.02.2023.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT NAGPUR
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 201819.
