PRATIMA SINGH,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(2), AGRA/, AGRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was bad in law as it was issued for mere verification and not to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessee's case for AY 2020-21 based on information regarding a property purchased below circle rate and unsubstantiated agricultural income. The AO disallowed the agricultural income and added the difference in property value to the total income.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was validly issued, and if not, whether it vitiates the subsequent reassessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148,Section 56(2)(x),Section 147,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC
Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
PER:BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10513426 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC(Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.
Brief facts of the case: In this case the AO had information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for sale consideration of Rs. 6,11,600/-, while the circle rate for the property was Rs. 8,31,000/-. The AO noted that the difference amounting to Rs. 2,19,400/- (Rs. 8,31,000 – Rs. 6,11,600)
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026