IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Years-2018-19)

Jharkhand State Bar Council, I.T.O., Bunglow No. 8, North Office para, Ward 1(1), Vs.

Doranda, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi.

PAN No. AACAJ 0989 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Chowdhary, A.R.

Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2025

O R D E R

PER: BENCH

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10234810 dated 12/11/2024 for the A.Y.

2018-19.

2. Shri M.K. Chowdhary, ld. AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is challenging the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 22/03/2022 wherein the assessee has been asked to file his response by 29/03/2022. It was a submission that this notice is invalid in so far as the assessee has not been given seven days time as required under the provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act issued which reads as follows:

It was a submission that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar Vs ACIT in ITA No. 80/Ran/2024 dated 18/08/2025 had following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs Pr.CIT in WP(T) No. 2640 of 2023 dated 28/08/2023 wherein it has been held as follows:

"5. The entire periphery and ambit of the legal ground is confined to the interpretation of expression "being not less than 7 days..." That as demonstratedbytheassesseethenoticedated12thMarch,2022u/s.148Aof the Act states that the assessee shall submit the response with supporting documents onor before18thMarch,2022.Therefore,as persection148A(b)

ofthe Act,excludingthesetwodas ie.Date ofissuance ofthe notice andthe date on when response is sought from the assessee, a clear 7 days time should have been provided to the assessee as has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs Pr. CIT passed in W.P.(T)No.2640 of2023 dated28.8.2023.Therelevant part ofthe judgment isextractedasfollows:

7.Todecidethelisinvolvedintheinstantapplicationitisnecessarytoperuse the provisions of the Act which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

Section148A(b)oftheI.T.Act.

"148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving uponhimanoticetoshowcausewithinsuchtime,asmaybespecifiedinthe notice,beingnotlessthansevendaysandbutnotexceedingthirtydaysfrom the date onwhichsuchnotice is issued,or suchtime,as maybe extendedby him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause(a);"

From bare perusal of Section 148A(b) it appears that minimum 7 days is required to be given to the Assessee for filing reply. This 7 day is to be calculated by ignoring the date of issue and the last date of submission. In other words, minimum 7 clear days has to be provided to the Assessee for filingreply.

In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pioneer Motors (Private )Ltd. Vs Muncipal Council, Nagercoil reported in AIR 1967 sc 684, wherein at paragraph 8 & 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deliberated the issue with regardtocountingofdates.

"8.The words "not beingless thanone month" doimplythat clear one months'snoticewasnecessarytobegiventhatisboththefirstdayand thelastdayofthemonthhadtobeexcluded.

"When...... 'not less than' so many days are to intervene, both the terminal daysareexcludedfromthecomputation".

9.......