Why Two-Day Notice Periods in Tax Hearings Are Being Challenged in Courts

Tax hearing notice period is an important consideration when taxpayers are given limited time to gather documents and respond to tax authorities. If you’ve ever struggled to track down documents from 48 suppliers in 48 hours, you can understand why this case resonated with the tax community. A recent ruling by the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reopened an important question: How much time is reasonable when a taxpayer is challenged on dozens of transactions?

The case that started the conversation

The case pertained to Remsons Industries Ltd., a producer of auto-parts, which had its return for AY 2021-22 selected for audit based on payments made to service-providers under Section 194J. Nothing new there – TDS anomalies attract audits all the time. But what was notable was the time-line. The AO issued a show-cause notice on 15 December 2022 asking for a compliance due date of 17 December. Another notice was issued on 19 December, requiring a compliance by 21 December. The order of final assessment was passed on 28 December 2022.

Within that brief period, the company was required to locate attestations from 48 different service vendors – most of which were small suppliers located throughout six manufacturing locations. Some had gone out of business. Others had suffered crippling losses during the Covid times. No way was any amount of diligence going to turn up 48 attestations in two days.

Yes, but the company did ask for an extension. It was granted an extension and could submit more documents, but only succeeded in one confirmation before the assessment closed. The AO additionally sent independent verification notices to some vendors under S 133(6); there were no responses from any of those vendors, and that was then used in part to support the extension.

How it worsened – and where the Tribunal intervened

Here’s the crucial bit that influenced the decision of the ITAT. The company had appealed to the CIT(A), providing exhaustive documentation – first May 2024, and subsequently in Jan 2026 following a show-cause notice. But the Tribunal held that this material was not scrutinized. And the appellate authority approved the levy without looking at the document on record.

ITAT declined to decide the merits of the underlying payments. It was process that it considered. The Tribunal observed that the notice period for short tax hearings – effectively 2 days for fresh show-cause response, 2 days for return of the second show-cause, and 2 weeks from the date of the first show-cause notice to the passing of final order – did not constitute a meaningful opportunity to put forth a reply. Together with the failure of the CIT (A) to consider the evidence submitted by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the preliminary verification to be carried out by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer afresh – this time providing the company with a meaningful opportunity. It’s worth being precise here: the Tribunal didn’t delete the addition or hold the taxpayer’s case to be correct. They reinstated it for the matter to be looked at again – a procedural victory, not a final judgement on the merits. But procedurally, it’s a big statement. The reason this continues and courts are resisting…

So much for isolated flare-ups.. Over the past few months, tribunals all over the country have been setting aside orders in appeals where notices were sent, but service wasn’t able to be established, where hearing dates were ganged together between unrelated appeals, or where ‘opportunity’ was available only on paper. The wide pattern here is a disconnect between the technical and actual ability for a fair hearing – between an AO ticking the box marked ‘notice sent’ and a taxpayer having the real time and ability to prepare and respond.

Faceless assessment, perhaps unexpectedly, has increased the unfairness it causes. They send the notices promptly – but they have no way of knowing whether, in the meantime, the various third parties they’re asking for information are indeed accessible, alive and well. When there are so many parties involved – 48 vendors here – a matter of two days ceases to be fair. The message to taxpayers and practitioners is two-fold. First, courts are now more prepared to assess whether notice was effective, rather than merely whether it was served. Second, a CIT(A) order that simply leaps over evidence in this way is likely to be challenged on appeal. For tax officers, the message is just as clear: haste must not trade substance. An assessment race to beat a limitation date is reasonable for administrative purposes, but when it is so truncated that a taxpayer cannot be adequately heard, it is likely to be, legally, on thin ice.

For official information on tax notices, assessments, and taxpayer procedures, visit the Income Tax Department website.

Key Regulatory Highlights

Tax hearing notice period determines how much time a taxpayer gets to review the notice and prepare a response.

Taxpayers should carefully check the tax hearing notice period mentioned in the official notice.

Missing the tax hearing notice period may lead to adverse action or a decision based on available records.

A taxpayer can submit relevant documents, explanations, and evidence before the tax hearing notice period expires.

If the notice provides insufficient time, taxpayers may consider requesting an extension before the tax hearing notice period ends.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a tax hearing notice period?

The tax hearing notice period is the time given to a taxpayer to respond to a tax notice, submit documents, or appear for a hearing.

How long is the tax hearing notice period?

The tax hearing notice period depends on the applicable tax law, type of notice, and authority issuing it. Always check the specific notice for the deadline.

Statutory Citations & References

TaxGuru — “ITAT: Two Days to Defend 48 Service Providers Not Fair Hearing; Addition Restored,” Remsons Industries Ltd. vs ACIT, ITAT Mumbai, 8 September 2026.
TaxGuru — “ITAT Sets Aside Ex-Parte Orders for Denial of Fair Hearing Opportunity,” Studycafe, April 2026.
TaxGuru — “ITAT Jaipur Holds Notice Issuance Alone Insufficient Without Proof of Effective Service.”
TaxGuru — “ITAT Restores ₹66.16 Lakh Demonetisation Appeal as Seven Notices Did Not Prove Service.”