INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BEAWAR, BEAWAR vs. ANKIT GARG, DIGGI MOHALLA BEAWAR

ITA 1887/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 September 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue solely based on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, which had been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others. The Supreme Court's order remitted the matters to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration, stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity, or applicability of the amended provisions. As the Ld. CIT(A) had not given a decision on merits and the basis of its decision was set aside, the Tribunal considered it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the 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. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.10.2025. The NFAC had allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid. The NFAC relied on the Telangana High Court's decision in Yashnu Yasasvi Polucherlav Vs. ITO. The Revenue's grounds of appeal challenge the NFAC's decision, arguing that the JAO had jurisdiction, the reassessment procedure under Section 148A was followed, and that the NFAC erred in relying solely on the Telangana High Court decision, which was pending before the Supreme Court. The Revenue also contended that evidence of bogus political donations was ignored.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A/148, ignoring that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) possesses valid statutory jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148, and the Faceless Reassessment Scheme does not curtail such jurisdiction, and that the AO followed the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 148A? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying solely on the Telangana High Court decisions without appreciating that the issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 021188/2024 against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and therefore the matter is sub-judice and unsettled? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the detailed evidence relied upon by the AO, including search findings, statements, digital data, diaries, WhatsApp chats, and identification of the assessee as a beneficiary of bogus political donation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, all of which constitute valid information under Section 148A? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits, despite clear evidence from the Investigation Wing establishing that the donation to RUPPs formed part of an organized bogus political donation racket, making the deduction under Section 80GGC rightly disallowable? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing reassessment proceedings as the JAO had jurisdiction and followed the procedure under Section 148A. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly relied on the Telangana High Court decision, ignoring that the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 021188/2024. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the evidence of bogus political donations and did not decide the issue on merits. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's order in ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 250,Section 132(4),Section 131(1A),Section 80GGC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Respondent: CA (thru V.C.)
Hearing: 28.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

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 28.10.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 Ankit Garg

2.

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:-

1.

Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 148A/148, ignoring the fact that the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) possesses valid statutory juri iction to

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →