BAIJAYANTI MEHER,BHUBANESWAR V. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 13/CTK/2026

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Baijayanti Meher against the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The first appeal (ITA No. 13/Ctk/2026) challenged the validity of a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was found to provide insufficient time for compliance, contrary to statutory requirements. The second appeal (ITA No. 14/Ctk/2026) contested a penalty imposed under Section 271AAC(1) following the assessment order. Both appeals were heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, which decided in favor of the assessee, leading to the quashing of the notice and the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839815 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Satish Kumar in WP(T) No. 2640/2023, Mantosh Kumar in ITA No. 80/Ran/2024, Rashmi Ranjan Beura Vs ITO in ITA No. 722/Ctk/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 13 & 14/CTK/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baijayanti Meher, Flat No. 6, Mahamaya Enclave, VIP Area, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751013 (Odisha) PAN No. ARZPM 5106 F Vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Somanath Sahoo, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10522626 dated 07/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 and in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10522627 dated 07/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 respectively. Firstly, we take up ITA No. 13/Ctk/2026, being the quantum appeal. 2. Shri Somanath Sahoo, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is on 17/03/2022 and the time given for compliance is 23/03/2022 which is less Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 13 & 14/Ctk/2026 Baijayanti Meher Vs ITO 2 than the requisite seven days time. It was the submission that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act reads as follows: It was the submission that under identical circumstances, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in WP(T) No. 2640/2023 dated 28/08/2023, the Coordinate Bench of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 13 & 14/Ctk/2026 Baijayanti Meher Vs ITO 3 Ranchi Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar in ITA No. 80/Ran/2024 dated 18/08/2025 and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rashmi Ranjan Beura Vs ITO in ITA No. 722/Ctk/2025 order dated 17/02/2026 quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It was the prayer that the reopening is also liable to be quashed. 4. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the issue of the present case regarding issue of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra) and the same has also been followed by the Coordinate Bench of the Ranchi Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar (supra) and the order of this Tribunal in Rashmi Ranjan Beura Vs ITO referred to (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), as the time provided in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is less than the seven days prescribed by the statute, the notice issued is held to be bad in law and consequently stands quashed. As the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act stands quashed, the consequential assessment order also stands quashed. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Now we take up ITA No. 14/Ctk/2026, which is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs.14,27,239/- levied under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 13 & 14/Ctk/2026 Baijayanti Meher Vs ITO 4 8. Since, we have allowed the quantum appeal by quashing the impugned assessment order, therefore, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) has no legs to stand, consequently, we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack, Dated: 27/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "