SONIA SINGH MANN (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH MANN),DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-69(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3027/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 July 2026AY 2018-193 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 an illegality in the assumption of jurisdiction makes an order void ab initio and can be agitated at any stage. The assumption of jurisdiction based on the impugned notice was vitiated, and thus the consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment and the notice of reopening, alleging it was issued by a non-jurisdictional authority. The notice under section 148A(b) was issued by ITO, Ward-1, Shimla, while the assessee's PAN and appeal were with AO, Ward 66(4), Delhi.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional authority. The validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148A(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.02.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’)

P a g e | 2 ITA No.3027/Del/2026 Sonia Singh Mann (AY: 2018-19) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086075924(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed ITO, Ward 69(1) Delhi, for AY: 2018-19.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that the issue involved is the challenge of reopening and the notice of reopening is allegedly issued by non- jurisdictional authority. Though ld. DR relied the impugned proceedings and submitted that objection is delayed, but we are of considered view that illegality in assumption of jurisdiction which makes order void ab initio, can be agitated at any stage.

3.

In this regard, we find that at page 1 assesse has provided copy wherein PAN Number is quoted and the appeal is filed with the AO, Ward 66(4), Delhi, however, notice has been issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act by ITO, Ward-1, Shimla and the copy of same available at page No. 2 & 3 of the paper book makes it appears that this notice has been issued on the basis that in the absence of PAN & ITR the impugned transaction of cash payment was examined and found to be a case of escapement of income. At page No. 13 copy of reply in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is provided wherein assesse has asserted all these facts to the AO, ITO Ward 69(1),

P a g e | 3 ITA No.3027/Del/2026 Sonia Singh Mann (AY: 2018-19) Delhi. Thus, very apparently assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of impugned notice dated 21.03.2022 is vitiated and the consequential proceedings also are liable to be quashed.

4.

We thus, sustain the corresponding grounds no. 2.2, and the appeal is allowed. The impugned assessment order is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 15.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →