INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BEAWAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, COURT CAMPUS BEAWAR vs. BHARAT SINGH RATHROE, KOTA

The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC Delhi has erred in :-

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely mechanically by placing reliance upon the judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16154/2023 in assesse's own case, without independently examining the legality & validity of the reassessment proceedings on the basis of material available on record; and, without appreciating the fact that such decision of the Hon'ble High Court has not been accepted by the Revenue and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus the issue has not attained finality yet?

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in annulling the reassessment proceedings without adjudicating the issue on merits, despite specific, credible and tangible information received pursuant to search action u/s 132 in the case of RUPP Group, which constituted valid information within the meaning of section 148 of the Act?

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the categorical findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, based on statements recorded u/s 132(4) and incriminating material unearthed during search, clearly establishing that Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) was engaged in providing accommodation entries in the garb of political donations and that the assesse had claimed deduction u/s 80GGC on such non-genuine donation?

That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

The revenue in the present appeal has challenged the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed assesses appeal noting that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court had , while allowing writ petitionfiled by the assessee ,quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act ,holding it to have been invalidly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when as per law, it ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. ……….. 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 27.08.2026