JITESHKUMAR MADHAVBHAI JAGANI,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 20/SRT/2026Status: HeardITAT Surat19 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 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 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Since the escapement of income admittedly did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, the jurisdictional condition prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) was not satisfied, making the assumption of jurisdiction bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the alleged escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, rendering the notice invalid as per Section 149 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening under Section 148/149 when escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice is issued beyond three years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay E Uke, Sr DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

At the outset itself, the AR for the assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the alleged escapement of income was less than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore the notice issued u/s 148 was invalid and void ab initio in view of the provisions of section 149 of the Act. The Ld. DR could not controvert the submissions made by the Ld.AR.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond three years Jiteshkumar Madhavbhai Jagani Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– from the end of the relevant assessment year and, therefore, as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, reopening could be done only if the Assessing Officer possessed material evidence showing escapement of income represented in the form of asset amounting to Rs.50 lakhs or more. Since the escapement in the present case admittedly did not exceed Rs.50 lakhs, the assumption of jurisdiction itself was bad in law.

4.

In view of the above undisputed facts, the jurisdictional condition prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act is not satisfied. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are without authority of law and liable to be quashed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Heard, dictated and pronounced in the open Court today on 19.01.2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →