PRANJAL JAIN,MUNGAOLI vs. ITO-ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 588/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 October 2026AY 2019-205 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 05.04.2023, for Assessment Year 2019-20, was issued beyond the permissible time limit. It was undisputed that the time limit of three years from the end of the assessment year expired on 31.03.2023. The Tribunal noted that Section 149(1)(b) read with Section 149(1)(a) pertains to escaped income less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Since the notice was issued on 05.04.2023, it was time-barred and bad in law. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were vitiated. The assessment order dated 26.11.2024 was set aside and quashed. The Tribunal stated that the other legal issues raised were academic and left them undecided. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pranjal Jain, filed an appeal against an order by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The original assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had initially claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 80GGC for a political donation. However, the case was reopened under Section 148, and the assessee suo motu disallowed the deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 270A, concluding that the assessee had misreported income, despite the suo motu disallowance. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, partly allowing credit for TDS and self-assessment taxes paid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the AO under Section 148 are illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, non est, and barred by limitation, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment beyond three years is bad in law, as the conditions prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) have not been satisfied, according to the assessee. 3. Whether the approval for reopening was taken from the Pr.CIT instead of the Pr.CCIT/CCIT as mandated under Section 151 when the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years, as contended by the assessee. 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC was justified, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 dated 05.04.2023 for AY 2019-20 was issued beyond three years, and since the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, it was void ab initio. The revenue relied on the impugned order passed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 80GGC,Section 250,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151,Section 149(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Shri Jaideep
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 14.10.2026Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 588/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pranjal Jain, V ITO, Near Police Station, Station Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Mungaoli, Dist-Ashoknagar-473443 City Centre, Tulsi Vihar Colony,Gwalior-474002 PAN: AXCPJ7260J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Shri Jaideep Jain, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 14.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.10.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2018-19/10420421 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] 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, confirming the disallowance

ITA No.588/Agr/2026

of Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed as political donation u/s 80GGC of the Act by the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 06.08.2019, declaring total income of Rs. 11,80,060/-. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2023 for examining assessee’s claim of deduction and exemption. Assessee filed return on 02.05.2023 in compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and suo moto disallowed the impugned deduction. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted that the said donation was made through banking channels i.e. NEFT only, to a political party i.e. Rashtriya Samajwadi Party(S) which was allowable u/s 80GGC of the Act. Consequent upon the search and seizure action conducted on 23 registered unrecognized political parties (RUPP) on 07.09.2022, the assessing officer found that assessee gave bogus donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) and received the said donation in cash after deduction of certain percentage of commission. Despite suo moto disallowance of the said donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- of the assessee, ld Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee misreported/ under reported the income and proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated with nil variations in 2 | P a g e

ITA No.588/Agr/2026

the peculiar facts of the case, vide assessment order dated 26.11.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who partly allowed assessee’s appeal to the extent of giving credit of TDS and self assessment taxes paid, confirming the remaining part of assessment order. 4. Appellant assessee has raised the following grounds under second appeal: “1. The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the proceeding initiated by ld. AO u/s 148 are illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, non est, barred by limitation. 2. The ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the reopening of assessment beyond three years is bad in law, as the conditions prescribed under section 149(1)(b) have not been satisfied. 3. The ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the approval was taken from Pr.CIT instead of Pr.CCIT/CCIT as mandated under section 151 in case notice u/s 148 issued beyond 3 years. 4. The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80GGC of the Act without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. ……”

5.

Perused the records and heard ld representatives for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Ld AR has not pressed ground no. 4, hence the ground no. 4 is dismissed as not pressed.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.588/Agr/2026

7.

The main point for determination, on the basis of the remaining grounds raised under appeal, is as to whether the notice u/s 148 dated 05.04.2023 is bad, being beyond 3 years from the relevant assessment year, as the income escaped is below 50 lakhs? 8. Ld AR, has, at the very first instant, submitted that the notice u/s 148 dated 05.04.2023 for A.Y. 2019-20 is beyond 3 years as the income alleged to have escaped assessment is below 50 lakhs, hence void ab initio and the subsequent assessment proceedings are bad in law. 9. Ld Sr DR relies on the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A). 10. It is undisputed fact that the instant case relates to A.Y. 2019-20. The time limit of 3 years from the end of assessment year expires on 31.03.2023. Time limit u/s 149(1)(b) r.w.s. 149(1)(a) of the Act relates to the escaped income which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The notice u/s 148 of the Act could have been issued by 31.03.2023, whereas the notice u/s 148 of the Act, which is part of assessee’s paper book at page 18 is issued on 05.04.2023 which is time barred and bad in law. The subsequent proceedings vitiates. We set aside and quash the assessment order dated 26.11.2024 passed in consequence thereof. The other legal issues remain academic in nature and, hence, are not being adjudicated and are left open. 4 | P a g e

ITA No.588/Agr/2026

11.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 28.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 28.10.2026 *Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →