VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL,JIND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BHIWANI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1317/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vijay Kumar Bansal Vs. Deputy Commissioner Shri Vishnu Laxmi Marbel HUDA Complex, Gandhi Nagar Bhiwani - 127 021 Jind, Haryana – 126 102 PAN No. ABHPB 1245 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri R. R. Singla, C.A. Revenue by Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15.06.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 23.12.2025 arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Bhiwani dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18.

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. “The Id. Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Bhiwani has erred in law and on facts by passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax on following jurisdictional grounds:- a. Without issuing any valid notice u/s 143(2) by the AO b. On transfer of case without having any order passed u/s 127 of the Act. 2. The ld. AO has erred in Law and on facts while passing an order u/s 143(3) of the Act based on a notice u/s 143(2) which was a. issued by ITO, Ward-1, Jind (a non jurisdictional assessing officer) b. issued in a format other than the one prescribed by the Board. c. Selected for manual security contrary to the instructions/guidelines issued by the Board. 3. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts while passing the order without application of mind and further by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts while charging the tax @60% u/s 115BBE of the income tax on an income already settled and agreed upon between the parties i.e. assessee and revenue at the time of survey when the statute had a provision of tax@ 30% u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. AO has erred in law and on facts while imposing a sort of penalty on agreed surrender subject to no penalty by applying the retrospective effect of the amendment in provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 6. The Assessee hereby requests to be allowed to make any addition, alteration, amendment or deletion to any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Page 2 of 9

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment year 2017-18 on 24-10-2017 at a total income of Rs.54,19,850/- after claiming a deduction under chapter VI-A for an amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- comprised of normal business income of Rs.4,43,853/- and surrendered income of Rs. 51,00,000/-. The ld AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2019 assessing the income at returned income but charging tax on surrendered income as deemed cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act @ 60%. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Jind issued a notice u/s 143(2) dated 27.09.2018 of the Income Tax Act, which was not in the format as prescribed by the Board and relied on Shilpi Sardana V DCIT ITA 1425/Del/2024. Delhi ITAT. The ld AR further stated that ITO, Jind had no jurisdiction over the assessee as per CBDT Instruction no 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 read with Instruction no 6/2011 dated 08.04.2011, as returned income declared was in excess of Rs 20,00,00/-. Further, the ITO Jind transferred the case to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhiwani without having any order u/s 127 of the Act and relied on the hon’ble Delhi Court in S.K.Industries V ACIT W.P.4014/2016 dated 31.05.2017. The ld AR Page 3 of 9

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT further argued that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Id. DCIT, Bhiwani Circle, Bhiwani without issuing any notice u/s 143(2) by himself and relied on the hon’ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362(SC). It is the say of the ld AR that since the DCIT, Bhiwani Circle, Bhiwani passed the assessment order without assuming valid jurisdiction, the assessment order passed is bad in law. 5. The ld AR further argued that the learned AO has erred in law and on facts while charging the tax @60% under section 115BBE of the Act on an income already settled and agreed upon between the parties i.e. assessee and revenue at the time of survey when the statute had a provision of tax @30% under section 115BBE of the Act and relied on the hon’ble Madras High Court decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT. 6. Per contra, learned DR stated that the assessee had filed return for AY 2016-17 with his jurisdictional AO i.e., ITO Jind. For AY 2017—18 also the assessee marked the ITO Ward -1, Jind as his jurisdictional officer. The notice u/s 143(2) for selection of the case for scrutiny was therefore issued by the ITO, Jind. The assessment u/s 143(3) however, was passed by the correct jurisdictional officer i.e., DCIT, Bhiwani as the income declared in the return was above Rs 20 lakh. The ld DR further stated that there is no requirement for passing order u/s 127(2) for transferring the case from ITO Jind to DCIT, Bhiwani as they both Page 4 of 9

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT fall under the administrative control of same PCIT Rohtak charge. The ld DR further stated that the assessee never raised any objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the AO, either ITO, Jind or DCIT, Bhiwani and relied on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC) dated 01- 05-2023. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has filed his return of income for the Assessment year 2017-18 on 24-10- 2017 at a total income of Rs 3,19,850/- plus the surrendered income of Rs 51,00,000/- taking the total income at Rs.54,19,850/- with ITO Jind where he was regularly filing the return. The ITO Jind accordingly issued notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time. We further find that the assessee never raised any objection to the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) by the ITO Jind or the notices u/s 142(1) by the DCIT Bhiwani and hence the decision of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) squarely applies wherein the hon’ble Court held that: 1. The impugned order set asides the assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015 on the ground that the jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon the returns. The jurisdiction had been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142 Page 5 of 9

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT (1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142 (1).

Page 6 of 9

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT format prescribed under CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA. II. Ground 1 and 2 are dismissed. 10. Ground 3 with regard to addition u/s 68, is considered as mere invocation of wrong section as the facts in the case shows that the AO had show-caused the assessee on addition of the said amount under section 69 to 69D only. The ground 3 is accordingly dismissed. 11. In so far as assessee's levy of tax at a higher rate under section 115BBE of the Act is concerned, we find that the Madras High Court in the Writ petition in the case of S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) has held that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. We find the transactions of the assessee pertain to period prior to 16.09.2016. Accordingly, we direct the AO to tax the additional income under normal provisions of tax without any recourse to the provisions of section 115BBE. The ground 4 and 5 raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 15.06.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Page 7 of 9

ITA No. 1317/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Vijay Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 8 of 9