IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alok Khatua, Cuttack ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Vs Madhupur, Belagachhia, Baranga, Cuttack-754005.

(PAN: EEYPK6293H)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARs Revenue by : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

ORDER

PER BENCH:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2019-20/10499078 dated 18.12.2025 for the assessment year

2020-21.

2. Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARs, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act 22.03.2024, which reads as under:

3.1 It was the submission that the said notice issued u/s 148A(b) is dated 22.03.2024 and the time given for responding is 29.03.2024. It was the submission that the assessee has not been granted clear seven days in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prasanna Kumar Sethy vs. ITO in ITA No.721/CTK/2025, wherein on identical issue the Tribunal has held as under:

“2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the present appeal before the Tribunal the assessee is challenging the original assessment order itself insofar as the reopening is invalid. It was submission that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act is dated 07.03.2022 and the time given for responding is 14/03/2022. It was the submission that the statute requires that the notice should give at least 7 days’ time. It was the submission that the said notice did not give the assessee the requisite 7 days’ time and that the assessment proceedings were ex-parte proceedings. It was the submission that as seven clear days has not been granted to the assessee, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar in W.P.(T) No.2640 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023, the clear seven days having not been given to the assessee, the notice is liable to be treated as invalid. It was the submission that said decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has also been followed by the ITAT Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mantosh Kumar, passed in ITA No.80/Ran/2024, dated 18.08.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in paras 3 to

7 as follows :-

3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is challenging the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the assessee has been asked to file his response by 21.3.2022. It was the submission that this order is invalid insofar as the assessee has not been given seven days time as required under the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is as follows:

“Notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sir/Madam/M.s Whereas I have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2018-19 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The details of the information and enquiry, if conducted, are enclosed with this notice in Annexure-A.

2. You are requested to show cause as to why, in view of the details contained in Annexure-A, a notice u/s.148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 should not be issued.

3. You may, to the extent technologically, feasible, submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues electronically in e-proceedings facility through your account in-e-filing portal at your convenience on or before 21.3.2022.

4. This notice is being issued