The court emphasized the importance of considering a belated reply if it is available before the final order is passed, in the interest of justice and fair play.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The short issue involved in this case is as to whether the Income Tax Department can refuse to look into a reply which is tendered belatedly to a notice under Section 148-A (b) of the Income Tax Act.

3. The Petitioner who is an assessee, is alleged to have failed in disclosing total credits of Rs.3,48,29,506/- during the financial year 2015- 2016, relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017 which were deposited in the bank account held by the Petitioner with M/s. Shri Renuka mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited. With the said notice having been issued on 29.05.2022, a period of fourteen days was granted to the Petitioner to tender a reply. Our attention is drawn to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 (Union of India and Others V/s. Ashish Agarwal), more specifically to paragraph 10 (i) (the last sentence) which reads as “the Assessing Officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter”.

4. Section 148-A (b) requires an opportunity of hearing to be given to the assessee which would not be less than seven days and should not exceeding thirty days from the date of the notice or such time as may be extended by the concerned authority on an application tendered by the assessee.

5. The Petitioner has tendered his reply dated 14.06.2022, to the notice at issue, which was uploaded on 15.06.2022. The authorities have passed an order under Section 148-A (d) on 27.07.2022. It is obvious that when the concerned authority delivered its order on the said date, the reply was already before the said authority.

6. The learned advocate Shri Sharma appearing for the Income Tax Department, who has vehemently opposed this petition, submits that the authority concerned has recorded in paragraph 3 of its order which reads as under:

“03. Information and material shared with the assessee:- Following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as mentioned above and considering the CBDT Instruction No.01/2022 dated 11/05/2022 and ITBA step- by step document No.1 dated 12-05-2022 related to implantation of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the information and the material was supplied to the assessee on 29.05.2022 and time of two weeks from date of communication of letter issued to the assessee conveying information/material relied upon was provided to the assessee for submitting the response/reply.”

7. He, therefore, contends on instructions, that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted only fourteen days time to submit a reply, any response from the assessee after such fourteen days, is to be ignored. The Department further contends that on verification, it was observed that the Petitioner had filed his return of income for the year under consideration and the aforesaid cash deposits/credits were not accounted for the year under consideration. We find that the said stand taken by the Department as is set out in the reproduced paragraph 3, would amount to a pedantic view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), has recorded that the time available for an assessee to reply is thirty days. Section 148-A (b) indicates that the minimum time to be granted is seven days and the maximum is thirty days. If a justifiable reason is put-forth, the time could be extended even there beyond.

8. However, Shri Sharma is right in contending that the fourteen days allotted to the Petitioner expired on 13.06.2022. There is no dispute on this contention. He is right in contending that the assessee should have moved an application online seeking extension of time and the Department could have considered that application.

9. It is obvious that the Assessee/Petitioner did not move an