DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER vs. ASHOK KUMAR PASARI, BEAWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had relied on a High Court order that was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the High Court's final ruling.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80GGC for a donation to a political party, which was denied by the Assessing Officer as bogus. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as infructuous, relying on a High Court order quashing the reassessment notice. However, the Supreme Court later set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous based on a High Court order that was later set aside by the Supreme Court, without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 158/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2019-20)

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Ashok Kumar Pasari Income Tax, 4-H-49, Gadi Thoriyan Circle 2, Ajmer Housing Board, Masuda Road, Beawar, Ajmer �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AHLPP 3375 K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026 O R D E R 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 07.11.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Revenue in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 158/JPR/2026 Ashok Kumar Pasari 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the merits of the case; AND, relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No. 17037/2023 quashing the notice issued u/s 148 and in granting relief to the assessee solely on that basis, without appreciating that the said order has not attained finality and was subject to challenge by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2.

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal as infructuous and in allowing the same, despite the fact that the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B was subsisting, operative, and valid on the date of passing of the appellate order as the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 17037/2023 and the same has been further challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3.

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction vested in him u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by annulling the reassessment proceedings, instead of adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits as required under the Act; AND, in not rendering any finding on the validity of the reassessment proceedings independent of the writ proceedings, despite the settled position that appellate jurisdiction under the Act is distinct from writ jurisdiction.

4.

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed findings of the Assessing Officer recorded in the assessment order based on incriminating material unearthed during search u/s 132 in the case of RUPPs group; AND, in not examining the evidences on record, including search-based material, statements recorded, and the established modusoperandi of bogus political donation scam, which clearly showed that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry.

5.

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee relying solely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, without appreciating that the issuance of notice was in substantial compliance with the statutory framework and notifications issued under the Act and the Faceless Reassessment Scheme, 2022 is a procedural mechanism and does not take away the inherent jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer conferred under sections 147 and 148 of the Act.

6.

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the reassessment proceedings in the present case were initiated after due compliance with section 148A of the Act, including issuance of show- cause notice u/s 148A(b), consideration of assessee's reply, and passing of a reasoned order u/s 148A(d), and therefore, the reassessment cannot be annulled merely on an alleged procedural irregularity, which never existed.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 158/JPR/2026 Ashok Kumar Pasari 7. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an order which is perverse & nonspeaking, bad in law, contrary to the facts on record and contrary to the intent of the legislature behind sections 147 to 151 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, as no finding whatsoever has been recorded on the genuineness of the donation, the assessee's eligibility under section 80GGC, or the detailed reasoning given by the Assessing Officer. 8. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, DLEETE OR modify any OR all the above grounds of appeal before OR at the time of hearing. 3. In the facts of the present case assessment had been framed denying grant of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80GGC of the Act, on account of donation made to a political party, holding the same to be a bogus donation. The deduction was denied to the assessee amounting to Rs.6,50,000/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted thatin the writ petition filed by the assessee through CWP No.17037/2023 contending that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) rather than the Faceless assessing Officer(FAO) as prescribed in law, the Hon’ble High Court, concurred with the assessee and through its order dated 01.09.2025, held the notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional AO to be not valid.The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, held that since the notice itself had been quashed, there was no assessment order existing and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. 5. During the course of hearing before me, it was brought to my notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026 has set aside the order passed by the Jurisdictional High

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 158/JPR/2026 Ashok Kumar Pasari Court and directed the High Court to pass order afresh considering the subsequent amendment made to the Section 148 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 me 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

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 158/JPR/2026 Ashok Kumar Pasari in this regard. No adjournments may be granted by the High Courts on mere asking of the parties. ……….. 6. Though none appeared on behalf of the assessee before me, however 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), I 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. 7. In view of the same, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 16.07.2026 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 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →