BALBIR SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 1, REWARI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee raised multiple grounds, including the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the validity of the notice under Section 148.
What were the issues?
The key issues were the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the validity of the assessment proceedings, including the notice issued.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 124(2),Section 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 1. Mega Corporation v. Addl. CIT18 citing62 Taxmann.com 351 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT[A], Rohtak dated 30.12.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of Ld. A.O. Ward 2 Narnaul.
2. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting in a summary manner the ground regarding the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 2 Narnaul to whom the case was transferred from ITO ward 2 Rewari by the JCIT Rewari.
3. The assessee raised objection to the jurisdiction of the I.T.O. Narnaul which as per provisions of section 124(2) of I.T. Act was to be settled by the CIT /COT only. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this ground of the assessee in a summary manner and by non-speaking order.
4. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to adjudicate judicially the ground of appeal where validity of notice u/s 148 was questioned on the ground of undated and incorrect reasons recorded.
5. The Ld CIT(A) further erred in passing an order in case of a deceased person without involving the legal heir of the assessee who died on 01/08/2015 and appellate order is dated 14/12/2015.
6. The LD. CIT(A) failed to decide the ground of appeal
wherein it was stated that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) without issue of notice under Section 143(2) by ITO Ward
2. Narnaul was invalid and non-est.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming addition made on account of cash deposit in his bank account despite plausible explanation furnished during assessment as well as appellate proceedings.
8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by LD. A.O. on account of denial of full exemption claimed under Section 54F of I.T. ACT.
9. The Ld. CIT(A) filed to adjudicate judiciously the claim of agricultural income of the assessee denied by LD. A.O. without any basis.
The assessee craves to amend, modify, delete or add any ground of appeal during appellate proceedings.
It is prayed that the appeal of the appellate may kindly be admitted and assessment framed may be adjudged as non-est being passed by an A.O. who did not have jurisdiction over the assesse.”
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the ITO has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Om Prakash in ITA No. 833/DEL/2016.
The ld. DR fairly conceded to this, though placed strong reliance on the assessment order.
We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and have carefully perused the order of this Tribunal. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. We find that this Tribunal in for Assessment Year 2007-08 has considered an identical quarrel. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under:
“7. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. Thus I hold that the assessment order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the ITO Ward (2) Narnaul was without jurisdiction, in view of the arguments made by the Id. counsel for the assessee Mr. Abhishek Maratha and 1 am convinced with the arguments so made by Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate and by reading the various provisions contained in section 120 and 127 of the Act and the office order of the JCIT and on perusal of the facts on record.
The submissions of Id. counsel for the assessee/appellants also gets reiterated by the decision of 1TAT "D" Bench in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT Range 6, New Delhi reported in (2015] 62 taxman.com 351 (Delhi) (Tribunal), whereby the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held that once authorities' lack jurisdiction then it is well settled it cannot participate even on elapse of time. Thus, in the absence of jurisdiction, order made by Addl.CIT is a nullity. Further provisions contained in section 124 is of no help to the Revenue in as much as here is a case where the Addl.CIT lacks jurisdiction and is not a case of exercise of jurisdiction of territorial jurisdiction. The assessment has to be completed by the authority who has initiated the proceedings for making assessment and any another authority and take over the proceedings only after a proper order of transfer u/s 127(1) or 127 (2) of the proceedings. The Revenue has not brought any order for transfer of proceedings from Dy. CIT Circle -6, New Delhi to the Addl. C1T, Range-6, New Delhi and therefore this is quite evident that the Addl. CIT - Range 6 took over the assessment proceedings, without there being an order u/s 127(1).
Consequently on this count, the assessment in the present case made by the Addl.CIT is illegal and bad in law and for want of jurisdiction for reasons aforesaid and the order of assessment was without jurisdiction and therefore is quashed as such.”
On finding parity of facts, respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal [supra], we hold that the assessment is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, quashed. Since we have quashed the assessment order, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 07.03.2022.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
