Prasanna Kumar Sethy Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack)
Summary: The ITAT Cuttack held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid because the assessee was not granted the mandatory seven clear days to respond. The notice was dated 07.03.2022 and required the assessee to respond by 14.03.2022. Excluding the date of issuance and the last date fixed for response, the statutory requirement of seven clear days was not satisfied.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Satish Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT and the subsequent ITAT Ranchi decision in Mantosh Kumar, which had followed Imran Ahmad. The underlying computation principle was traced to the Supreme Court decision in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil, under which both terminal dates are excluded when the statute requires “not less than” a specified number of days.
The Revenue relied upon Anuj Ghuliani Vs. ITO, where the Delhi High Court had directed the Assessing Officer to consider a belated response, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal distinguished that decision because it concerned inadequate opportunity and consideration of a delayed response, rather than a direct challenge to the statutory minimum seven-day period under Section 148A(b).
