TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned order under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was vitiated by procedural irregularity for failure to grant a clear seven days' time to file a reply to the notice; and whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to reply.
Analysis: The petition challenges the order passed under the statutory procedure prescribed by Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the requisite clear seven days for filing a reply was not effectively granted due to intervening holidays. The issue was examined by reference to the statutory requirement of an adequate, clear period to enable a taxpayer to file a response to a notice under the provision, and by reference to relevant precedent on notice-period compliance. In the factual matrix before the Court, three holidays intervened within the period specified in the notice, and the respondent did not controvert that fact. The impugned order was therefore assessed for procedural infirmity arising from inadequate opportunity to be heard and failure to comply with the statutory timeline requirement.
Conclusion: The impugned order dated 6th April, 2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the assessing officer to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving the petitioner or an authorised representative an opportunity to be heard and after considering the petitioner's reply to the notice. The petitioner is directed to file the reply within two weeks from date, and the assessing officer is directed to pass the fresh order within four weeks from receipt of such reply; in default the impugned order shall revive.
Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires that a taxpayer be afforded a clear and adequate period to file a reply to the notice; failure to grant such clear time, including where intervening holidays negate the prescribed period, constitutes procedural infirmity warranting setting aside the order and remand for fresh consideration after affording the statutory opportunity to be heard.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
