Selvaraj Arokia Sagaya Raj Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Reassessment Quashed for Violation of Mandatory Seven-Day Period under Section 148A(b)
The ITAT, Chennai held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer issued the notice on 30.03.2022 and required the assessee to respond by 31.03.2022, granting only one day instead of the statutorily prescribed minimum period of “not less than seven days”. Rejecting the Revenue’s contention that the timeline is merely directory, the Tribunal relied on the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bevinakuppe Ningegowda Ramalingegowda v. ITO and ITO vs. Venkatal Ayyappa Ranjanna. It was held that such failure renders the notice under Section 148A(b) contrary to law, and consequently the notice under Section 148 and the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B were quashed as non est. Since the appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional issue, the remaining grounds were treated as academic, and the stay application was dismissed as infructuous.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal and Stay Application by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short “CIT(A)”) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) dated 22.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
