DEVENDRA THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1727/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148A(b) was bad in law. A perusal of the notice and annexure revealed that the AO did not provide any information to the assessee regarding the alleged escaped income. Instead, the AO issued a questionnaire for making fishing and roving inquiries, which cannot form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in "Chetak Nandkumar Gandhi vs. ITO" (2025) 181 taxmann.com 769 (Gujarat), which held that a notice under Section 148A(b) calling for further details for making an inquiry, instead of providing information suggesting escapement of income, renders the notice of reopening under Section 148 bad in law and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the reopening of assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 were held to be bad in law. The consequential assessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed. The Tribunal did not specifically address the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 80GGC or the violation of natural justice as these issues became moot due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Devendra Thakkar, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 22.07.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal challenged an addition of Rs. 3,00,000 made under Section 80GGC, the upholding of the Assessing Officer's (AO) action in violation of natural justice, and the validity of a notice issued under Section 148. The assessee also raised an additional legal ground regarding the AO's issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) for roving inquiries. The AO had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) stating that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and enclosed an annexure requesting various details and documents from the assessee, including business activities, financial statements, bank account details, and donation details under Section 80GGC/80GGB.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 80GGC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous in law and fact? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's action, which allegedly violated the principle of natural justice by not providing evidence and cross-examination of deponents? (Mixed question of law and fact) 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO was valid, or should it have been issued in a faceless manner? (Question of law) 4. Whether the AO erred in issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) for roving inquiries not permissible under the said section? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued for roving inquiries, not based on specific information suggesting escapement of income. The AO failed to provide any information to the assessee about the alleged escaped income and instead issued a questionnaire. The assessee relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in "Chetak Nandkumar Gandhi vs. ITO" (2025) 181 taxmann.com 769 (Gujarat). Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 80GGC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI R. GOVINDARAJAN

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, AR, Smt. Deeba Farhat, Sr. D.R
For Respondent: Smt. Deeba Farhat, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 13/08/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 22.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal:

ITA No.1727/Ahd/2025 [Devendra Thakkar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2019-20 - 2

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 →