Praveena Kumari Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka HC tells AO: “Seven days means seven days — not your version of it!”; Reassessment notice struck down for haste under 148A(b)
The Karnataka High Court quashed the reassessment notice & all consequential proceedings, holding that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) did not grant the mandatory minimum period of seven days to respond.
The Petitioner had challenged multiple proceedings, including the notice u/s 148A(b) dated 06.03.2023, the order u/s 148A(d) dated 20.03.2023, the reassessment notice u/s 148, the reassessment order u/s 147 dated 13.02.2024, & the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c), all pertaining to AY 2016-17.
The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling in ITO & Ors vs Venkatalaiyyappa Rajanna (W.A. No. 612/2025), which held that under Section 148A(b), the AO must provide an opportunity of being heard with a minimum period of seven days, & failure to do so renders the notice invalid. In that case, the Division Bench had affirmed the Single Judge’s finding that a notice issued on 20.03.2022 requiring a reply by 25.03.2022 was contrary to law for not satisfying the statutory minimum period requirement.
Applying the same ratio, the Karnataka High Court observed that the impugned notice in the present case suffered from the identical infirmity. Consequently, it set aside the notice issued u/s 148A(b) & all subsequent proceedings — including the order u/s 148A(d), notice u/s 148, order u/s 147 r/w 144, & penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).
