INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES V. WADHAWA MISSION, ANAND NAGAR, TELIBANDHA

MA 32/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue against an earlier decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had quashed an assessment order due to procedural lapses in compliance with Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had erred in quashing the assessment order merely because the assessee was given six days instead of the mandated seven days for compliance. The Tribunal, however, upheld its earlier decision, referencing various judicial precedents that supported the necessity of providing a full seven days for compliance to uphold the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841173 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Pinky Jhawar Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur, Police Welfare Society Vs. ITO, Rajnandgaon, MM Wonder Park Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, Ranchi District Bar Association Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Imran Ahmed Vs. ITO, Giridih, Satish Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKSHI GOPAL AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Invalid notice; Tax effect; Principle of natural justice; Validity of assessment
• Section: 148; 260A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.32/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.385/RPR/2025) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Wadhawa Mission House No.141, Anand Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) PAN: AAAAW5873C ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 20.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.32/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.385/RPR/2025 for assessment years 2018-19, dated 22.07.2025 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Revenue by filing the captioned miscellaneous application submitted as follows: (relevant extract) “4. The decision of the Hon’ble ITAT is not acceptable in principle as it has utterly failed to decide the case on merits. Instead, it has quashed the entire assessment order as invalid merely because the assessee was provided with 6 days not 7 days to make compliance and at the same time failed to appreciate that the A.O has complied with provisions of Section 148A of the Act by giving an opportunity of heard for compliance. It has also failed to take into account the fact that the assessee had responded to the Show cause notice during the course of assessment proceedings and no such objection was raised by the assessee at that point and therefore the assessee can't challenge the validity of assessment proceedings in view of section 292B of the Act. Giving six days Instead of seven days may be on account of technical lapse and therefore it should not be basis for quashing the assessment order. If the assessee found the period of compliance was short, he had the opportunity to seek further more days for making compliance which it failed to do so. The shortfall of one day i.e. 6 days instead of 7 days can't be regarded as prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. Keeping in view the discussion supra even though tax effect In this case is Rs.3,55,440/- which Is lower than the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT’s Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing of further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court u/s. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.32/RPR/2025 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble high Court is recommended in this case, if deemed fit. 5. The order of the ITAT is not acceptable as per the merits of the case. Hon'ble ITAT has failed to appreciate its own decision in the case of Smt. Pinky Jhawar Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur In ITA No.552/RPR/2024 dated 31.01.2025 In Division Bench, wherein Hon’ble 1TAT has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh. Again, Hon'ble ITAT in its judgment in the case of Police Welfare Society Vs. ITO, Rajnandgaon in ITA No. 256/RPR/2025 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of New Rajdhani Honda Vs. CIT has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating the matter afresh. The same yardstick should have been applied in this case also, as the ease is having similar facts and circumstances. In other words, instead of quashing the notice/assessment, the matter should have been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for having a fresh look at the entire issue.” 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 22.07.2025 is well-reasoned and the same does not call for any interference. 4. In this case, the Tribunal had provided relief to the assessee on the legal ground assailed by the Ld. Counsel regarding the validity of notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act, wherein clear 7 day’s time for compliance had not been provided to the assessee. In this regard, relevant observation of the Tribunal, dated 22.07.2025 are extracted as follows: “4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel has assailed legal ground regarding validity of notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act wherein clear 7 days’ time for compliance has not been provided to the assessee. Referring to Pages 25 & 26 of paper book, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated that notice Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.32/RPR/2025 u/s.148A(b) of the Act was issued on 20.03.2022 and compliance was sought for on 26.03.2022 which is less than 7 days excluding the date of issuance and the date when such compliance is sought for. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that as held by Hon’ble High Courts that in notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is concerned, excluding the date of issuance of notice and date of compliance sought for mandatorily a clear cut 7 days was required. 5. Reverting to the facts of the present case of the assessee, date of issuance of notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is 20.03.2022 and compliance from assessee sought for is 26.03.2022, therefore, a clear cut 7 days time excluding the date of issuance of notice and date of compliance sought for is absent. That the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MM Wonder Park Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, passed in Writ Petition (T) No.172/2022, dated 17.06.2022, had observed, that the A.O had issued a show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act giving just 7 days’ time to the assessee/petitioner to file its reply. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that the time period of 7 days provided to the assessee vide notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act was unreasonably short, and thus, violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned case had quashed both the order passed by the A.O. u/s.148A(b) of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 and the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 05.04.2022, and set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee/petitioner. For the sake of clarity, the observations of Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the above referred to documents/Annexures and other material available with due care. 6. From perusal of the documents/Annexures, it appears that the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed with regard to a transaction which occurred in the financial year 2014-15 after serving a notice dated 25.3.2022 (Annexure P1) and giving a mere 7 days' time to the Petitioner/assessee to furnish a reply to the said notice. The time granted to the Petitioner/assessee to submit reply to the said notice appears to be unreasonable short and the Petitioner/assessee cannot be blamed for not being able to Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.32/RPR/2025 file the reply within such a short period. Thus, it appears that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner/assessee appears to be reasonable. Thus, the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 5.4.2022 (Annexure P3) issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and the Respondents are directed to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner/assessee and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed”. 6. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Ranchi District Bar Association Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.P (T) No.4606 of 2023, dated 27.02.2025 on the same issue has held and observed as follows: “2. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(T) No. 2640 of 2023 vide order dt. 28.08.2023 considered the provisions of the Income Tax Act and held as under: “7. To decide the lis involved in the instant application it is necessary to peruse the provisions of the Act which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:- Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. “148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); “From bare perusal of Section 148A(b) it appears that minimum 7 days is required to be given to the Assessee for filing reply. This 7 day is to be calculated by ignoring the date of issue and the last date of submission. In other words, minimum 7 clear days has to be provided to the Assessee for filing reply. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.32/RPR/2025 In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 SC 684 wherein at paragraph 8 and 9 the Hon’ble Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regard to counting of dates. “8. The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one month's notice was necessary to be given, that is, both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. ………………..……….. “ When…… ‘not less than’ so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation”. ……………………………………. 9. ………..………… In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consideration the language used and the object to be achieved. As we have said above, the use of the words “not being less than one month” implies the giving of a clear month excluding both the first and the last day of the month ………………………………………………………….. Emphasis supplied. 8. Thus, we see that the law is no more res-integra; inasmuch as, the words ‘not be less than 7 days’ implies that clear seven days is obligatory to be given to the Assessee. Thus, on the one hand the notice which was given to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with the provision of the Act, inasmuch as, only 6 clear days was given to him. So, on this score alone the notice under Section 148A(b) deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 3. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said proposition of law laid down in that case. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned ex- parte assessment order as well as the penalty orders passed by the respondents are set aside. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to reply to the show cause notice dt. 23.03.2022 and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law within three months from the date of filing of the reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice after complying with the principles of natural justice.” Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No.32/RPR/2025 7. Further, I find that ITAT, Ranchi “SMC” Bench in the case of Imran Ahmed Vs. ITO, Giridih, ITA No.357/RAN/2024, dated 18.12.2024 after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT, W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 on the similar issue had held and observed as follows: “5. The entire periphery and ambit of the legal ground is confined to the interpretation of expression “being not less then 7 days….” That as demonstrated by the assessee the notice dated 12th March, 2022 u/s.148A of the Act states that the assessee shall submit the response with supporting documents on or before 18th March, 2022. Therefore. as per Section 148A(b) of the Act, excluding these two dates i.e. date of issuance of the notice and the date on when response is sought from the assessee, a clear 7 days time should have been provided to the assessee as has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. Pr.CIT, passed in W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023, dated 06/28.08.2023. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as follows :- “7. To decide the lis involved in the instant application it is necessary to peruse the provisions of the Act which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:- Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. “148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); “From bare perusal of Section 148A(b) it appears that minimum 7 days is required to be given to the Assessee for filing reply. This 7 day is to be calculated by ignoring the date of issue and the last date of submission. In other words, minimum 7 clear days has to be provided to the Assessee for filing reply. Printed from counselvise.com 8 MA No.32/RPR/2025 In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 SC 684 wherein at paragraph 8 and 9 the Hon’ble Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regard to counting of dates. “8. The words “not being less than one month” do imply that clear one month's notice was necessary to be given, that is, both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. ………………..……….. “ When…… ‘not less than’ so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation”. ……………………………………. 9. ………..………… In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consideration the language used and the object to be achieved. As we have said above, the use of the words “not being less than one month” implies the giving of a clear month excluding both the first and the last day of the month ………………………………………………………….. Emphasis supplied. 8. Thus, we see that the law is no more res-integra; inasmuch as, the words ‘not be less than 7 days’ implies that clear seven days is obligatory to be given to the Assessee. Thus, on the one hand the notice which was given to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with the provision of the Act, inasmuch as, only 6 clear days was given to him. So, on this score alone the notice under Section 148A(b) deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 6. Considering the aforestated judgment as per the notice issued to the assessee u/s.148A of the Act, the assessee gets only five clear days for response i.e excluding the date of issuance of the notice and the date on which the response is sought for. This is, therefore, violative of the mandate as prescribed in the Act and also as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court (supra) Therefore, on this score alone, the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings becomes a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. 7. That, since the Bench has answered this additional legal ground in favour of the assessee raised in this appeal, Printed from counselvise.com 9 MA No.32/RPR/2025 resultantly, all other grounds raised both on merits as well as the other legal grounds becomes academic in nature. 8. As per the above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the notice u/s.148A(b)/148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 is held invalid and void ab initio, hence quashed. 9. Since notice itself u/s.148A(b)/148 has been held to be nullity, therefore, such invalid notice cannot set in motion any valid subsequent proceedings and resultantly, all other proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 10. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. The Tribunal in its wisdom and on proper examination of the documents placed on record and relying on various judicial pronouncements, had held that since notice u/s. 148A(b)/148 of the Act was not in terms with the legal mandate, hence, the said notice was held invalid, void ab initio, hence quashed. 6. Coming to the contents of the miscellaneous application of the Department, I am of the considered view that the Revenue in the garb of the present miscellaneous application has sought review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible within the purview of Section 254(2) of the Act. As the Revenue had failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring from record, therefore, I am of the Printed from counselvise.com 10 MA No.32/RPR/2025 considered view that the Revenue in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.385/RPR/2025, dated 22.07.2025 which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within Printed from counselvise.com 11 MA No.32/RPR/2025 its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that.” 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed. 8. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of February, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 23rd February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. Printed from counselvise.com 12 MA No.32/RPR/2025 आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "