The Delhi High Court has held that public holidays are excluded from the seven days time period to file a reassessment notice reply.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the public holidays are required to be excluded for the purpose of calculation of seven days, the petitioner would be required to file his reply on the next date following the public holiday.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged a notice passed under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as an order passed under Section 148A(d) on the grounds that he petitioner was not granted seven days to file a response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The notice was issued on 21.03.2024 and the petitioner was provided seven days to respond to the same. However, three days out of seven days were holidays and, therefore, the petitioner claims that he did not get seven working days to respond to the said notice.
A plain reading of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act indicates that the Assessing Officer (AO) had information to the effect that the petitioner had made purchases from an individual named Ajay Gupta, sole proprietor of M/s Gupta Paper Marts. Ajay Gupta was a non-filer during the relevant period and had not responded to the summons issued to him. According to the information, Ajay Gupta was not a genuine entity and payments received in the bank account of Shri Ajay Gupta were withdrawn in cash.
The petitioner had filed his return for the assessment year (AY) 2020- 21 declaring a total income and the AO was of the view that the said return was not commensurate with the reported transactions entered into by the petitioner.
Although the petitioner claims that he did not have sufficient time to respond to the said notice, the petitioner did respond to the notice on 29.03.2024. The petitioner’s response is also noted by the AO in his order dated 30.03.2024.
The court while dismissing the petition held that the petitioner did not file reply within the specified period and, therefore, he cannot make any grievance at this stage of not being provided sufficient time to do so.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhishek Bansal Versus ITO
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17300/2024
Date: 16.12.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Shahrukh Ejaz
Counsel For Respondent: Gaurav Gupta
