SHASHANK GUPTA HUF,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4751/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 July 2026AY 2020-213 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 assessment framed by the ACIT was invalid as per CBDT Instructions No. 1/2011, which stipulated that in metro cities, income of Rs. 20 lakhs was required for assessment by an Income Tax Officer, not a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 11,54,770/-. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the assessment framed by the ACIT due to jurisdictional reasons based on the declared income and CBDT instructions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 02.06.2026

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year: 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1087970403(1), dated 27.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 I.T.A. No. 4751/Del/2026 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte….

It transpires at the outset there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the learned ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad’s assessment framed in the assessee’s case on 18.03.2025 itself. This is for the precise reasons that the assessee had admittedly declared income of Rs. 11,54,770/- in its return filed on 19.11.2020 (page 1 of the paper book). This tribunal’s attention is further invited to the CBDT Instructions No. 1/2011 dated 31st January, 2011 that such a corporate return in metro cities required income of Rs. 20 lakhs to be assessed by the Income Tax Officer and not the Deputy Commissioner or Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax.

3.

This being the clinching factual position going unrebutted from the Revenue side, I hereby conclude that the learned ACIT’s impugned assessment is a non-est one in the eyes of law. Quashed accordingly in very terms.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court as on 02.06.2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 15th July, 2026 *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) Appellant: (2) Respondent: (3) CIT

3 I.T.A. No. 4751/Del/2026 (4) CIT (Appeals) (5) DR, I.T.A.T. Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →