Karnataka High Court Upholds Mandatory Seven-Day Reply Period Under Section 148A(b): Short-Notice Proceedings Struck Down
Case Reference
ITO Vs Smt. Ramegowda Chandrakala (Karnataka High Court)
Overview of the Judgment
The Karnataka High Court has once again reinforced a critical procedural safeguard available to assessees in reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In a writ appeal filed by the Revenue, the Court dismissed the challenge and reiterated its settled legal position — that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides less than seven days for the assessee to submit a reply is legally unsustainable. This ruling is consistent with the Court's earlier Division Bench pronouncement in W.A. No. 1141/2026, which had conclusively addressed the same question of law.
Background and Factual Matrix
The case before the Karnataka High Court arose from a situation where the Income Tax Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings against the assessee, Smt. Ramegowda Chandrakala, by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The central grievance was that the notice in question failed to provide the minimum statutorily required period of seven days for the assessee to respond.
The matter had initially been considered by a learned Single Judge, who, following the binding precedent of the Division Bench in W.A No. 612 of 2025 in the case of Income Tax Officer and ors. v. Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna, had proceeded to set aside not just the foundational notice, but the entire chain of consequential proceedings that stemmed from it.
Aggrieved by the Single Judge's order, the Revenue preferred the present writ appeal before the Division Bench, contending that the seven-day period was not mandatory.
Revenue's Contentions
The standing counsel for the appellant Revenue advanced the following arguments before the Court:
- The minimum period of seven days prescribed for compliance with a notice under
Section 148A(b)is not mandatory in nature, and ought to be treated as merely directory. - Since
Section 148Aexpressly provides that the Assessing Officer has the authority to extend the time for compliance up to thirty days, the initial grant of a period shorter than seven days does not invalidate the notice. - The argument was essentially that the jurisdictional power to issue the notice under
Section 148A(b)remains unaffected even if the time given for response falls below the seven-day threshold, as the assessee retains the option to seek an extension. - Setting aside the notice merely on account of a sub-seven-day compliance window was, according to the Revenue, an overly technical approach that undermines the Assessing Officer's statutory authority.