ATUL KUMAR AGARWAL,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD, 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH

ITA 441/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 October 2026AY 2019-208 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 of the appeal, quashing and setting aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 05.04.2023 and the notice issued under Section 148 dated 05.04.2023. The reasoning was based on the fact that the approval obtained under Section 151 from the PCIT, Agra, was invalid. The approval proforma indicated that the time limit for current proceedings was covered under Section 149(1)(b) for more than 3 years but not more than 10 years. However, the escaped income was Rs. 7,00,000/-, which is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, making Section 149(1)(b) inapplicable. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi vs. Asst. CIT, which held that an approval granted on wrong facts, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 149(1)(b) and the quantum of escaped income, renders the approval mechanical and invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated 27.12.2024, passed in consequence of the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. As Ground No. 2 was allowed, other grounds were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atul Kumar Agarwal, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) had information regarding a bogus donation of Rs. 7,00,000/- claimed as a deduction under Section 80G. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 05.04.2023. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B on 27.12.2024, resulting in an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the notice issued, and the subsequent assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B dated 27.12.2024 is bad in law and without jurisdiction, thus liable to be quashed? (Assessee's contention: Yes, due to invalid initiation of proceedings and lack of valid approval). 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice under Section 148A(b), order under Section 148A(d), and approval under Section 151 are based on wrong facts and hence liable to be quashed? (Assessee's contention: Yes, the approval under Section 151 was granted on incorrect facts regarding the escaped income and applicability of Section 149(1)(b)). 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 dated 05.04.2023 is barred by time, considering the provisions of Section 149 and Section 151? (Assessee's contention: Yes, Section 149(1)(a) should apply, not 149(1)(b), and if 149(1)(b) is considered, the approval should be from PCCIT, not PCIT, as the escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs). 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- is sustainable, considering the proceedings were initiated for income of Rs. 70,000/- said to have escaped assessment? (Assessee's contention: The addition is erroneous as the basis of initiation was a lower amount). 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- as donation to a political party, claimed as deduction under Section 80GGC, is valid? (Assessee's contention: This ground is linked to the validity of the assessment). Assessee's arguments primarily focused on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings due to a lack of proper approval under Section 151, citing the case of Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi. The revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151,Section 250,Section 80G,Section 80GGC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER:BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2018-19/10424347 by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner of Income Tax), u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2019-20, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2.

Brief facts of the case: In this case, the AO had information from the investigation wing regarding bogus donation of Rs. 7,00,000/- to Manavadhikar National Party and had claimed wrong deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2023. The assessment was

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 →