Case Law Details
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertana (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court, Division Bench, has reiterated that a notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act must mandatorily provide not less than seven days’ time to the assessee for filing a reply. A notice granting a shorter period is invalid.
Assessee had challenged a notice dated 24.03.2022, which called upon her to respond by 29.03.2022. Since the notice provided only 5 days’ time, she contended that it violated the express mandate of section 148A(b). The learned Single Judge, by order dated 09.01.2024, quashed the notice but reserved liberty to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
In appeal, the Revenue argued that the seven-day period under section 148A(b) was only directory & not mandatory. However, the Division Bench, following its recent ruling in WA No.612/2025 (dated 05.08.2025), rejected the argument. The Court observed that the language of section 148A(b) clearly stipulates “not less than seven days” & hence the statutory requirement is mandatory. Since only 5 days were provided, the notice stood vitiated.
Accordingly, the writ appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, & the order of the Single Judge was upheld, with liberty to the Revenue to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law.
Reassessment notices u/s 148A(b) must compulsorily grant a minimum of 7 days for the assessee to reply. A shorter time period renders the notice invalid & the entire proceedings liable to be quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
This appeal by revenue filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 09.01.2024 in W.P. No.10266/2023, whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice issued by the appellant-revenue under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 solely on the ground that a minimum period of seven days was not provided to the respondent herein to respond to the notice, reserving liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
2. Heard Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellants, and perused the entire writ appeal papers.
3. The parties to the proceedings would be referred to as before the Writ Court. The appellants were respondents and the respondent herein was the petitioner.
4. Petitioner approached the learned Single Judge questioning, Section 148A(b), notice dated 24.03.2022, mainly urging that the notice would not provide seven days’ time to respond to the said notice. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order quashed the said notice, accepting the contention of the petitioner and reserving liberty to the respondent-revenue to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, in addition to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that the time provided under Section 148A(b) is not mandatory and it is directory.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions urged by the appellant-revenue. However, we are not in a position to accept the contention of the appellant- revenue in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 05.08.2025 in W.A. No.612/2025.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, Section 148A(b) notice is dated 24.03.2022, which is placed on record as Anneuxre-A, calling upon the petitioner to reply on or before 29.03.2022. Section 148A requires providing of minimum seven days’ notice to the assessee to respond to the said notice. The Co-ordinate Bench in the decision (supra), considering identical contention at paragraph No.5, has held as follows:
” 5. It is clear from the plain reading of Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act, that a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is required to provide an opportunity to the assessee to respond to the information which may suggests that the assessee’s income has escaped assessment. The minimum period of such notice is stipulated as “not less than seven days”. In the present case, the impugned notice was issued on 20.03.2022 and the Assessee was called upon to furnish a reply on or before 25.03.2022. Indisputably, the impugned notice did not comply with the requirement of providing a minimum period of seven days to respond to the said notice.”
8. There is no reason to disagree with the above decision. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Author Bio
