ITAT Raipur on Section 148A(b): Reassessment Set Aside for Not Granting Seven Clear Days

1. Background of the Dispute

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Kaizen Motoventures Private Limited Vs ACIT examined whether a reassessment initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 could survive when the assessee was not given a full “not less than seven days” to respond to a notice issued under Section 148A(b).

The appeal related to Assessment Year 2019-20 and arose from an order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The assessee questioned the very jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings by attacking the validity of the Section 148A(b) notice.

Key factual dates in the present case:

  • Notice under Section 148A(b) issued: 03.03.2023
  • Last date for compliance mentioned in the notice: 10.03.2023

The core contention was that, once the date of issue and the last date for compliance are both excluded, the assessee was effectively left with only six clear days, whereas Section 148A(b) mandates an opportunity of being heard within a period of “not less than seven days” from the date of issue of the notice.

The assessee’s counsel argued that:

  • The wording of Section 148A(b) requires that a show-cause notice must allow an opportunity of being heard within a time “not less than seven days” from the date on which such notice is issued.
  • Judicial interpretation of similar expressions such as “not less than” makes it mandatory to exclude both terminal days – i.e., the date of issuance of the notice and the last date fixed for compliance.
  • In the instant case:
    • Date of issue: 03.03.2023
    • Due date for response: 10.03.2023
    • Excluding both ends yields only six intervening days, which falls short of the statutory minimum.
  • As a result, the notice under Section 148A(b) was asserted to be invalid and void ab initio, and any reassessment order resting on such a notice would consequently be without jurisdiction and non-est in law.

This challenge went to the root of the reassessment, not merely a procedural irregularity; if the notice itself is defective on a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, the entire subsequent proceedings must fall.

3. Prior ITAT Raipur Ruling Relied Upon: Avani Ferro Alloys

The Tribunal noted that it had already addressed an identical legal issue in DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 88 to 91/RPR/2025, decided on 06.08.2026. That earlier decision was reproduced and relied upon in detail.

In Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., the facts were:

  • Notice under Section 148A(b) issued on: 16.03.2022
  • Time given for reply: on or before 23.03.2022

3.1 Argument of the Assessee in Avani Ferro Alloys

In that case, the assessee had contended:

  • The phrase “not less than seven days” in Section 148A(b) mandates seven clear days.
  • Both the date of issue (16.03.2022) and the last date (23.03.2022) have to be excluded when computing the period.
  • If both dates are excluded, the intervening days are less than seven, rendering the notice void ab initio.
  • Any further action, including reassessment, founded on such a notice would be a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law.

3.2 Revenue’s Stand in Avani Ferro Alloys

On behalf of the Revenue, it was asserted that: