The Karnataka High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued to Massood Gulam by the Income Tax Officer ( ITO ), due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of providing a minimum of seven days for the taxpayer to furnish a reply under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The case involved a notice dated March 21, 2023, in which the petitioner was granted only six days to respond. However, Section 148A(b) clearly mandates a minimum period of seven days for submission of a reply, and this discrepancy rendered the notice illegal.
It was observed that, “it is an undisputed fact that the Notice at Annexure – A dated 21.03.2023 prescribes a period of six days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Under these
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh’s case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the Notice at Annexure – A and alsoconsequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserve to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondent to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.”
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, presiding over the matter, referred to the ruling in Mukesh J. Ruparel v. Income Tax Officer, decided by the Bombay High Court, which held that a notice offering less than the required seven-day period is invalid. Following this precedent, the Karnataka High Court quashed the notice and related orders in Gulam’s case.
The court further observed that the shortened response period was in direct violation of the law, and as a result, no valid proceedings could have followed from such a notice. The reassessment order dated March 24, 2024, and other consequential actions were also annulled.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
In summary, the Karnataka HC set aside the reassessment notice and all related proceedings against Massood Gulam. However, the court granted the Income Tax Department the liberty to reissue a notice, ensuring adherence to proper legal procedures.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
