AASHIYANA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “ए”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
ŵी एस įरफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आअसं.8472/ िदʟी /2019 (िन.व. 2008-09)
Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd.,
22/2B Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018
PAN: AAFCA-2236-A ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 1(1), R.No 366, Dr. S.P Mukherjee,
Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor,

S/Shri Shivam Yadav & Tarun Chanana, Advocates

Department by: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
24/04/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
04/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated
27.08.2019, for assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 declaring loss of Rs.10,97,461/-. The return of income was accepted u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a survey operation was carried out in the case of Shreeji Group of cases, the assessee is one of the group companies. During

2
the course of survey operation it was gathered that Shreeji Group of Companies have received huge share capital/share premium from various entities. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notices to various parties to verify identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee allegedly failed to prove identity of the following parties:
Name of the Entity
Amount (in Rs.)
Share Capital
Metalcity Construction (Kovai)
P. Ltd.
20,00,000
Haculese
Builders
(Coimbatore) P. Ltd.
10,00,000
Texcity Construction (Kovai)
Pvt. Ltd.
20,00,000
Sushil
Software
Pvt.
Ltd.
(MAPS Creation Pvt. Ltd.)
20,00,000
Ang. Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
10,00,000
Total
80,00,000/-

3
that the assessee is challenging validity of the assessment proceedings as the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without juri iction. The ld.
Counsel placing reliance on the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011
submitted that as per aforesaid instructions, the monetary limit for assuming juri iction in respect of return of income filed up to Rs.30,00,000/- in the case of a corporate returns is with the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The assessee has filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.10,97,461/-. Therefore, the assessment order should have been passed by the ITO, whereas, in the case of the assessee, the assessment order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, the assessment order has been passed by an Officer who has no juri iction over the assessee. He further pointed that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax on 31.03.2015, whereas, as per the monetary limit specified as per the aforesaid instructions the notice should have been issued by the ITO having juri iction over the assessee. In support of his aforesaid arguments he placed reliance on the following decisions:- i. Ashok Devichand Jain, vs. UOI and Others in Writ Petition No. 3489 of 2019 decided on 08.03.2022 by Hon’ble Bombay High Court; &
ii. Vipual Mittal v. DCIT in ITA No. 2850/Del/2019 for AY 2014-15 decided on 15.01.2025(ITAT Delhi).
5. Per contra, Shri Ashish Tripathi representing the department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for dismissing the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging juri iction of the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that since it was a survey operation the assessments of entire group must have been clubbed together, hence, the assessment order was passed by the DCIT.

4
6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration before us at this stage is: Whether the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 had juri iction to pass the assessment order in the case of assessee in light of Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra)? The CBDT vide aforesaid instructions has specified monetary limits for passing the assessment orders in the case of various assessees. The relevant extract of the said instructions is reproduced herein below:-

Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahemedabad, Bangalore,
Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune.”
7. The case of the assessee is that since in the return of income the assessee has declared loss of Rs.10,97,461/-, the ITO had juri iction to pass the assessment order in the case of assessee, whereas the assessment order has been passed by the DCIT.
When the ld. DR was confronted with the aforesaid instructions he sought time to ascertain the facts and also to place on record a copy of the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act, whereby the juri iction of the AO was changed from ITO to DCIT. As prayed for by the ld. DR time was granted to furnish copy of the order passed u/s.127 of the Act, if any. On the next date of hearing the ld. DR expressed his inability to furnish order u/s. 127 of the Act. In the absence of any order u/s. 127 of the Act transferring juri iciton from ITO to DCIT, we hold that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016
passed by the DCIT is without juri iction.
Income Declared (Mofussil areas)
Income Declared (Metro Cities)
ITOs
ACs/DCs
ITOs
DCs/ACs
Corporate returns
Upto Rs. 20 lacs
Above
Rs.20
lacs
Upto Rs.30 lacs
Above Rs.30
lacs
Non-corporate returns
Upto Rs.15 lacs
Above
Rs.15
lacs
Upto Rs.20 lacs
Above Rs.20
lacs

5
8. We further observe that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 (at page
100 of the paper book) was issued by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. In light of aforesaid CBDT Instructions even the Officer issuing said notice was not having juri iction over the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok
1/2011(supra) had held that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was without juri iction. If, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without juri iction, any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab initio.
9. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipul Mittal vs DCIT (supra). In light of facts of the case and documents on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is without juri iction, hence, liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.
10. Since, the appeal of assessee is allowed on juri ictional issue, the grounds assailing additions on merits have become academic, hence, not deliberated at this stage.
10. In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 04th day of July, 2025. (S RIFAUR RAHMAN)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 04/07/2025

NV/-

6
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.