Delhi ITAT: Reopening Invalid When Less Than Seven Days’ Time Given Under Section 148A(b)

Background of the Dispute

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of DCIT Vs Vishwanath Singhal (ITAT Delhi) examined the legality of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19.

The core issue was not the quantum of income or the substantive additions, but whether the reassessment proceedings themselves were vitiated at the threshold because the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the statutorily mandated minimum period of seven days for the assessee to submit his response.

The outcome was significant: the Tribunal held the reassessment to be invalid and therefore quashed the reopening, rendering all other issues purely academic.

Proceedings Before the ITAT

Appeals and Cross-Objection

  • The matter came before the ITAT through:

    • Revenue’s appeal: ITA No. 2028/Del/2025, and
    • Assessee’s cross-objection: C.O. No. 255/Del/2026

  • Both arose from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] bearing DIN and order number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072636719(1) dated 28.01.2025.

  • The reassessment proceedings had been commenced under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The Tribunal heard both sides, examined the case records, and proceeded to first address the legal ground raised in the assessee’s cross-objection relating to the validity of the reopening itself.

Short Time Given to Respond

The assessee’s primary contention in the cross-objection was that the very initiation of reassessment was invalid because the notice under Section 148A(b) did not comply with the mandatory requirement regarding the minimum time limit for response.

  • The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 12.03.2022.
  • The assessee was directed to file a reply on or before 17.03.2022.

This effectively provided less than seven days from the date of issuance of the notice, contrary to the explicit requirement under Section 148A(b) that the assessee must be granted “not less than seven days” to respond.

The Tribunal noted that this factual aspect—date of notice and the reply deadline—stood undisputed from the Revenue’s side. Thus, the legal question squarely turned on the consequences of such a procedural lapse.

Reliance on Delhi High Court Judgment

Binding Precedent: Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO

To support the legal challenge, the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in:

Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, W.P.(C) No.7385/2022, dated 12.05.2022

This decision directly addressed the requirement under Section 148A(b) regarding the minimum period to be given to an assessee to respond to the show cause notice and the consequences of non-compliance.

The ITAT reproduced and relied upon key findings from the High Court judgment, which may be summarised as follows:

  1. Facts Considered by the High Court