Atal Agrawal Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Seven Days Means Seven Clear Days—AO’s Five-Day Shortcut Makes Reassessment Take the Exit u/s 148A(b)
The Controversy
The Assessee challenged the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2018-19. The principal legal objection concerned the validity of the notice issued by the AO u/s 148A(b).
The notice was dated 24.03.2022, while the Assessee was required to submit his response by 30.03.2022. According to the Assessee, the statutory requirement of allowing “not less than seven days” was not satisfied because both the date of issuance of notice & the last date fixed for compliance had to be excluded. Once these two terminal dates were excluded, the Assessee was left with only five clear days.
The issue before the Raipur ITAT was, therefore, whether the apparent interval between 24.03.2022 & 30.03.2022 amounted to seven days or whether the statutory expression “not less than seven days” required seven complete intervening days.
Section 148A(b): Opportunity Must Be Real, Not Mathematical Make-Believe
Section 148A(b), as applicable to the proceedings, required the AO to provide an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show-cause notice specifying a time of not less than seven days but not exceeding thirty days from the date of issuance.
