AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2)(1), Bangalore against Adhimoolam Shanthi concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The core issue in the appeal was the validity of a notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allegedly provided insufficient time for the respondent to respond. The Tribunal referenced a judgment by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Thulaseedas Srinath Vs. ITO, which clarified that a minimum of seven days must be provided for a response to such notices. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was void ab initio due to the failure to provide the required time, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 667614 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-06-2025
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Judgement Text
"ITA No.2284/Bang/2024 Adhimoolam Shanti, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2284/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO Ward 2(2)(1) Bangalore Vs. Adhimoolam Shanthi No.125, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main Prakash Nagar Bangalore 560 021 Karnataka PAN NO : AHWPS7820F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Gokul, A.R. Revenue by : Sri Balusamy N, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the revenue is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 16th August, 2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067690434(1) and relates to assessment year 2018-19, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulaseedas Srinath Vs. ITO in WP No.14325 of 2024. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, annexed as annexure-1 to the synopsis is dated 24.3.2022 and the time granted ITA No.2284/Bang/2024 Adhimoolam Shanti, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 for response is 30.3.2022, which is less than 7 days and hence the entire proceedings are void ab initio. 3. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the orders of authorities below. 4. After considering rival submissions, we observe that the AO is not granted 7 days’ time to the assessee for responding in response to notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. In our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulaseedas Srinath Vs. ITO cited (supra), wherein it has been observed as under: “In light of the same, it is clear that not less than seven days ought to be provided for making out a reply to the notice. 4. The assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner that non- affording of time period of seven days has resulted in prejudice and violation of principles of natural justice requires acceptance, as it is noticed that the proceedings have been initiated in the absence of objections. 5. Accordingly, as the notices at Annexures-'A' and 'A1' itself are vitiated, the consequential orders and notices a/so require to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of Doddagarudanahalli Vyavasaya Seva Bank Niyamitha vs. Income Tax Officer [2025] 174 taxmann.com 864 wherein it was held that: 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a plain reading under Section 148 A(b) of the IT Act will indicate that the minimum statutory period prescribed therein is 7 days as he/d by this Court in the case of Janaki Aenuga as stated supra. 8. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned notice will indicate that it was issued on n 03.2022 by granting time up to 25.03.2022 to the petitioner to submit his reply which ITA No.2284/Bang/2024 Adhimoolam Shanti, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 clearly short of the minimum period of 7 days prescribed in the said provision and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned notice at Annexure B and consequential proceedings including the impugned assessment order notices etc., deserves to be quashed.” 5. Following the above verdict, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 26th June, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "
Mehul