JACKEY JESWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 42(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3498/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 October 2026AY 2019-2011 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 dated 24.04.2023 was issued beyond the limitation prescribed under section 149(1)(a), read with the applicable provisos. The Tribunal calculated the limitation period, noting that the ordinary period of three years from the end of assessment year 2019-20 expired on 31.03.2023. After excluding the reply period and applying the sixth proviso to section 149(1), the permissible period for issuance of notice under section 148 expired on 21.04.2023. Therefore, the notice issued on 24.04.2023 was beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly identified the date of the notice under section 148 as 29.03.2023, whereas this date pertained to the notice under section 148A(b). Consequently, the notice under section 148 was invalid, and the reassessment founded upon it could not be sustained. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the reassessment order was quashed. The Tribunal stated that since the reassessment was quashed on limitation, the jurisdictional contentions and other objections concerning the basis of reopening, as well as the grounds concerning the deduction under section 80GGC and reliance on third-party material, did not require separate adjudication and were left open or became academic. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the genuineness of the donation or the admissibility of the deduction on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jackey Jeswani, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 against the order of the CIT(A) dated 22.01.2026, which upheld a reassessment order dated 10.12.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs.13,62,370/- in his original return. During the financial year 2018-19, he donated Rs.4,00,000/- to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) and claimed a deduction under section 80GGC. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on information from the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation)-1(1), Ahmedabad, alleging that certain political parties, including the one to which the donation was made, were involved in providing accommodation entries for political donations. The AO alleged routing of funds through intermediaries and return to donors after commission. A show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 29.03.2023, and the assessee filed a reply on 14.04.2023. The AO passed an order under section 148A(d) on 24.04.2023 and issued a notice under section 148 on the same date. The reassessment order disallowed the Rs.4,00,000/- deduction under section 80GGC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice under section 148 dated 24.04.2023 were bad in law, being barred by limitation and not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 148A, as argued by the assessee. The revenue contended that the search-related information constituted sufficient material for initiation of reassessment and that the proceedings were undertaken after obtaining necessary approval. 2. Whether the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, rendering the assessment illegal and void-ab-initio, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point. 3. Whether the disallowance of deduction of Rs.4,00,000/- under section 80GGC claimed by the assessee was erroneous, as argued by the assessee, who relied on banking records and donation receipts and objected to reliance on third-party statements without providing copies or affording cross-examination. The revenue accepted the investigation findings and held that banking channels and donation receipts did not establish genuineness. 4. Whether the disallowance was made on the basis of third-party general statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point. 5. Whether the disallowance was made without providing a copy of third-party statements relied upon by the AO, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 80GGC,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal, Ld. A.R. (Virtually Present)
For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 01.10.2026

PER: MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM This appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019- 20 is directed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The impugned appellate order arises from the reassessment order dated 10.12.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act.

2 Jackey Jeswani

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →