ITO,WARD-1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR vs. YUVRAJ SINGH, DHOLPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 139/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision relied upon by the CIT(A) was set aside by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the ITAT restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after the High Court's decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that a notice under Section 148 was invalidly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

What were the issues?

Validity of a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO instead of a Faceless AO, and the impact of a subsequent Supreme Court order setting aside the High Court's decision on this matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

For Respondent: Adv (Thru. V.C.)
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 139/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2019-20)

ITO Vs. Yuvraj Singh Ward-1 2/19 Housing Board Bharatpur Colony Dholpur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:CSRPS 9695 G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Bhawsinghka, Adv (Thru. V.C.) Date of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 03.11.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.139/JPR/2026 Yuvraj Singh 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- 1. Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Shri Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs PCIT(Central) in DB CWP No. 18987/2025 dated 24.09.2025 wherein the Hon'ble High Court by relying on its own decision in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. Vs ACIT and others (DB CWP No. 10540/2024) dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs ITO & Others (2025 SCC Online Raj 3586) following the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) has quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by JAO and ruled that the notice had to be issued by FAO holding that the notice u/s 148 of the Act should have been issued by the FAO instead of JAO, despite knowing the facts that departmental SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter regarding issue of notice u/s 148 by JAO/FAO has not been finalized yet. 3. The revenue in the present appeal has challenged the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed assesses appeal holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, in the present case was invalidly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when as per law, it ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh. Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. PCIT (Central) in DB CWP No. 18987/2025 dated 24.09.2025, and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court while quashing the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the AO, and accordingly setting aside the assessment proceedings in the present case. 4. The ld. DR pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026has set aside the order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court and directed the High Court to pass order afresh considering the subsequent amendment made to the Section 148

P a g e | 3 ITA No.139/JPR/2026 Yuvraj Singh of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was pointed out, has directed the High Court to pass the order by the 30th September 2026. Copy of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court was placed before us and attention drawn to para 22 -28 of the order as under:- …….. 22. Since the High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the JAOS lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgments in favor of the assessees are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are accordingly remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.

23.

The assessees are granted liberty to amend their writ petitions, if so advised, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of uploading of this order, so as to enable them to lay challenge to Section 147A of the IT Act, as introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, or to any other connected or consequential provision.

24.

Similarly, the Appellant-Revenue shall be at liberty to file their written submissions and affidavits before the jurisdictional High Courts within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

25.

No additional time shall be granted to the parties beyond what has been granted above.

26.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions, and all such questions are left open to be decided by the High Courts.

27.

Finally, during the pendency of the writ petitions. before the High Courts, there shall be an interim stay of further assessment/reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the High Courts.

28.

The High Courts are requested to decide the matters preferably by 30.09.2026. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to extend full cooperation to the High Courts in this regard. No adjournments may be granted by the High Courts on mere asking of the parties. ………..

P a g e | 4 ITA No.139/JPR/2026 Yuvraj Singh 5. Noting the above fact, and further considering that, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue solely on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no decision on merits has been given by the Ld. CIT(A),we considered it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh, after the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. In view of the same, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →