https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422903 The court quashed the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the notice under Section 148, both dated April 13, 2022, due to the petitioner not being given adequate time to respond. The court emphasized the right of the petitioner to sufficient time for a response and ruled that a one-day delay in requesting an adjournment should not lead to the closure of the right to reply. Respondent No.1 was instructed to issue a fresh reasoned order under Section 148A(d) after considering the petitioner's reply within eight weeks. en-us Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 May 2022 09:09:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422903 The court quashed the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the notice under Section 148, both dated April 13, 2022, due to the petitioner not being given adequate time to respond. The court emphasized the right of the petitioner to sufficient time for a response and ruled that a one-day delay in requesting an adjournment should not lead to the closure of the right to reply. Respondent No.1 was instructed to issue a fresh reasoned order under Section 148A(d) after considering the petitioner's reply within eight weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422903