Seven Clear Days Mandatory Under Section 148A(b): ITAT Raipur in Atal Agrawal Vs ITO

Background of the Dispute

In Atal Agrawal Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur), the Raipur Bench of the ITAT examined whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) that apparently spans seven calendar days, but provides only five “clear” days, can be treated as legally valid.

The assessee had challenged the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2018-19. The core jurisdictional objection was directed against the notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Key factual dates were:

  • Notice under Section 148A(b) dated: 24.03.2022
  • Last date specified for response: 30.03.2022

The assessee contended that the phrase “not less than seven days” used in Section 148A(b) requires seven clear intervening days between the date of issuance of notice and the last date for compliance. On that basis, both 24.03.2022 (date of issue) and 30.03.2022 (last date to respond) must be excluded from computation. This left only five intervening days, not seven.

The question before the ITAT Raipur was thus straightforward but legally significant:

Does a notice that covers the dates from 24.03.2022 to 30.03.2022 satisfy the requirement of “not less than seven days” in Section 148A(b), or must there be seven full intervening days excluding both terminal dates?

The Tribunal answered this by leaning on established principles of computation of time, Supreme Court precedent, and recent High Court rulings on identical language in Section 148A(b).

Statutory Framework: Opportunity Under Section 148A(b)

Section 148A(b) (as relevant for the period in question) obliges the AO to:

  • Provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee,
  • By issuing a show cause notice,
  • Specifying a time for response “not less than seven days but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued”.

The assessee’s argument was that:

  • The statutory minimum is mandatory, not directory.
  • The date of issue of notice cannot be counted as a full day for compliance, because the assessee does not have the entire day at his disposal to react and prepare.
  • The last date fixed for response is the day on which compliance is due, and is therefore not an intervening day either.

By excluding both these dates, the assessee submitted that only five clear days were actually available, which fell short of the mandatory requirement of “not less than seven days”.

The assessee further argued that this was not a mere technical defect. The minimum seven-day window was a conscious legislative safeguard meant to ensure that:

  • The assessee gets adequate time to understand the material relied upon,
  • Collects and reviews relevant records,
  • And furnishes an effective and meaningful explanation before any reassessment is triggered.

Thus, any shortfall in this minimum period directly affects the validity of the jurisdiction assumed under Section 148A(b) and thereby vitiates the entire reassessment.

Prior ITAT Raipur Ruling: DCIT Vs Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

The Raipur Bench noted that it had recently decided an identical question in DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 88 to 91/RPR/2025, order dated 06.08.2026.

In that case:

  • The Section 148A(b) notice was issued on 16.03.2022,
  • The assessee was directed to respond on or before 23.03.2022.

The Revenue contended that the interval between 16.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 amounted to seven days and therefore met the statutory condition of “not less than seven days”.

The ITAT, however, rejected this by applying the settled rule that where the law uses the expression “not less than” a specified number of days, both terminal dates must be excluded. The result:

  • The period between 16.03.2022 and 23.03.2022, when computed by excluding both dates, yielded less than seven clear days.
  • The notice under Section 148A(b) was therefore held to be non-compliant and was quashed.
  • All subsequent reassessment proceedings were held to be non est in law.

This earlier decision provided a direct precedent on the exact interpretative issue raised in Atal Agrawal Vs ITO.