HARESH SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2124/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Haresh Sharma, filed an appeal against the order dated March 19, 2026, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The appeal challenges various grounds related to the validity of notices issued under Sections 143(2), 148A(b), and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment order passed under Section 144B read with Section 147, and the approval obtained under Section 151. A significant ground of appeal pertains to the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80GGC amounting to Rs. 4,21,000/-. The assessee was represented by no one at the hearing, while the Revenue was represented by Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR. The Tribunal decided the matter on merits based on the available record.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Regarding the disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC amounting to Rs. 4,21,000/-, the Tribunal held that this issue was covered by its own order in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ITO (ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023, dated 30.04.2025), which upheld the disallowance based on investigation material, bank trail, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches in the cases of Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh Vs. DCIT, Milind Pankajbhai Shroff Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot, Ritesh Sugan Jain Vs. ITO, and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant Vs. ITO. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the other procedural grounds raised by the assessee, but their dismissal is implied by the overall dismissal of the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following issues: 1. Whether the jurisdictional notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer fatal. 2. Whether the Assessment Order passed under Section 144B read with Section 147 of the Act was invalid and void, and ought to have been passed under Section 144 read with Section 147, as per Section 144(1)(a) and the 3rd proviso to Section 148. 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act was invalid due to the non-supply of relevant information and material relied upon by the department. 4. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 for initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 147 were bad in law due to the lack of approval from the appropriate authority. 5. Whether the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and hence invalid. 6. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer was time-barred and required to be quashed. 7. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,21,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80GGC was required to be deleted. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued in respect of an invalid return, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. The assessment order under Section 144B was incorrect, and it should have been under Section 144. The notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid due to non-disclosure of relied-upon material. The order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were bad due to lack of proper approval. The approval under Section 151 was mechanical. The notice under Section 148 was time-barred. The addition of Rs. 4,21,000/- under Section 80GGC was erroneous and should be deleted. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the Revenue on the procedural grounds. However, regarding the disallowance under Section 80GGC, the Tribunal relied on its previous orders and coordinate benches, implying the Revenue's stance was in line with the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144B,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 80GGC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.10.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019- 2020. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

ITA No.2125/AHD/2026, AY-2019-20 Haresh Sharma - 2–

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in fact while disallowing ground in appeal before him that the juri ictional notice issued u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act has been issued in respect of such invalid return

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →