Time for compliance of a notice to be calculated not by clock but by calendar – HC

Time for compliance of notice is to be calculated not by the clock but by the calendar. – order u/s 148A(d) quashed

Time for compliance of a notice is to be calculated not by the clock but by the calendar. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court quashed order u/s 148A(d) passed without considering reply of the assessee on the ground that it was received beyond stipulated time.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4670 (2025) (07) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case a Writ Petition was filed by the assessee praying for setting aside the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

The Petitioner submitted that the impugned order under section 148A(d) had been passed without considering the detailed reply of the Petitioner and was in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as the circulars issued by the CBDT.

It was further prayed that Show Cause Notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act be also set aside. Further, prayer was made for quashing/ setting aside the Notice dated issued under Section 148 of the Act.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that it was not in dispute that the petitioner vide its earlier communication requested the AO to grant it time to file reply till 4:00 p.m. as he was not in town and, thereafter, by 4:00 p.m. he had filed the reply.  However, surprisingly, the AO vide the impugned order had simply referred to the request letter whereby the petitioner had sought extension of time till 04:00 p.m. and, thereafter, proceeded to pass the impugned order.

The Revenue in its defence stated that the said request letter had been received after the stipulated time fixed in notice for making submission had expired.

The Hon’ble High Court expressed anguish over the approach of the Department and stated that when in the impugned order the AO had acknowledged the said request letter, why the subsequent detailed submission of the even date made by the assessee could not be considered by the AO.

The Hon’ble High Court stated that time is to be calculated not by the clock but by the calendar and if the scheduled date of compliance was taken to be the last date for submission of reply, then obviously the reply submitted by the petitioner was well within time.

As a result, the Hon’ble High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and consequential notice issued under Section 148A of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the AO to proceed to pass a fresh order under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST
• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities