MANISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CC-26, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1523/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2026AY 2021-225 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 issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) by an officer vested with jurisdiction is a prerequisite for assessment under section 143(3). It noted that CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, effective from 1 April 2011, assigns cases with declared income up to Rs 20,00,000 in metro charges to ITOs, and above Rs 20,00,000 to ACs/DCs. Since the Assessee's declared income was Rs 9,85,210, jurisdiction vested with the ITO, not the DCIT. The Tribunal found no evidence of jurisdiction being conferred on the DCIT, Central Circle, by any order under section 127 or section 120 of the Act. Therefore, the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order passed by the DCIT were without jurisdiction and quashed. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devichand Jain. The legal ground was allowed, rendering the grounds on merits academic.

What were the facts?

The Assessee, Shri Manish Mittal, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 declaring Rs 9,85,210. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-26, Delhi, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making an addition of Rs 8,00,000 on account of cash deposited in the bank. The Assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed. The Assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), challenging the assessment order on merits and also on the ground that the proceedings were initiated and assessment framed by an officer lacking jurisdiction, violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Delhi, is null and void for want of jurisdiction, in light of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31 Jan 2011? Assessee's contentions: The Assessee argued that as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, for non-corporate returns filed in metro charges like Delhi, jurisdiction for declared income up to Rs 20,00,000 vests with the Income Tax Officer (ITO), and only income exceeding Rs 20,00,000 vests with the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner (AC/DC). Since the declared income was Rs 9,85,210, the DCIT lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 143(2) or pass the assessment order. Reliance was placed on Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India (Bombay High Court) and decisions of the co-ordinate benches in Anita v. Assessing Officer and Vipul Mittal v. DCIT. Revenue's contentions: The Senior Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 119,Section 250,Section 292BB,Section 127,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Senior DR
Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

1.

2 ITA-1523/Del/2026

3 ITA-1523/Del/2026

4 ITA-1523/Del/2026

5 ITA-1523/Del/2026

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →