PARULBEN JERAMBHAI PARSANA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

ITA 799/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 October 2026AY 2019-208 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additional grounds raised by the assessees, pertaining to the validity of the approval under Section 151, go to the root of the matter. It was noted that all facts relating to these legal grounds were on record and no further inquiry was required. The Tribunal admitted these additional grounds, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT. Upon examining the approvals under Section 151 for both assessees, the Tribunal found that they were neither digitally nor manually signed. Relying on the binding precedent of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot in M/s. Aditya Plastics, the Tribunal held that the reassessment orders, based on defective approval under Section 151, should be quashed. Consequently, both appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

These are two appeals filed by different assessees, Parulben Jerambhai Parsana (ITA No. 799/RJT/2025) and Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan (ITA No. 800/RJT/2025), for Assessment Year 2019-20. Both appeals challenge orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were clubbed and heard together due to identical issues. The assessees are challenging the disallowance of deductions claimed under Sections 80GGC and 80G, as well as certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. A key procedural issue raised is the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 due to alleged defective approval under Section 151.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment orders passed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the approval under Section 151 of the Act was neither digitally nor manually signed, rendering it defective? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the approval under Section 151 was not validly obtained as it was neither digitally nor manually signed. Therefore, the reassessment orders based on such defective approval are bad in law and should be quashed. Reliance was placed on the ITAT Rajkot Bench decision in M/s. Aditya Plastics ITA No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 and the Allahabad High Court judgment in Vikas Gupta. Revenue's Contention: The learned DR for the Revenue opposed the admission of these additional legal grounds at this stage, stating that the assessees cannot raise legal grounds at this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 01/10/2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 799/RJT/2025
ITA No. 800/RJT/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the different assessees, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, are directed against the separate ord

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 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →