DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER vs. PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN, BEAWAR

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case instead of mechanically disposing it off as infructuous, thereby abdicating the statutory duty cast upon him under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby rendering the appellate order non-speaking and unsustainable in law because the case of the assessee had been identified as a case involving organized tax evasion through accommodation entries in the guise of political donations under section 80GGC of the Act, which is evident by seized documents, sworn statements u/s 132(4), digital evidences and established modus operandi of the RUPP group?

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. 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 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was pointed out, has

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 impugned notices, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the High Courts.

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