AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082583496(1), dated 13.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We advert to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel straightway takes away to pages 36 to 37 of the paperbook containing the said section 148A(b) notice dated 22.03.2023 seeking the assessee’s response on or before 29.03.2023. His case therefore is that the above impugned notice had nowhere granted her minimum seven working days time to respond thereto which is not sustainable in law.
That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 251 (Calcutta), the instant issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that such a mandatory compliance has to have minimum seven working days exclusive of holidays or closing days etc.; as the case may be. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal ground to quash the impugned reopening in very terms. The Revenue’s vehement submissions in support thereof are hereby rejected.
All remaining pleadings between parties stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.