Shaikh Saidque Haji Shaikh Taher Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
The Nagpur Bench of the ITAT has held that where the Assessing Officer granted less than the statutory minimum period to respond to a notice under section 148A(b), the notice was invalid and the consequent reassessment proceedings could not survive.
The assessee, Shaikh Saidque Haji Shaikh Taher, faced two appeals for AY 2019-20. In ITA No. 342/NAG/2026, the assessee challenged, among other matters, the addition of Rs. 29,67,100 under section 69 and the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147. The principal legal objection was that the notice under section 148A(b) had provided less than seven days for submitting a response.
The notice was issued on 18 March 2023 in the evening and required the assessee to submit his reply by 24 March 2023. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had effectively granted only five days and, even if the date of issue was counted, only six days were available. The statutory provision required a minimum seven-day period.
The assessee relied upon the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh J. Rupatel v. ITO [2023] 153 taxmann.com 70 and the Rajasthan High Court in Bijendra Singh v. PCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 66. The assessee submitted that the minimum period prescribed under section 148A(b) was mandatory and that a notice allowing less than seven days could not be sustained.
