ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. MONICA KUMAR, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5571/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 September 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devi Chand Vs. UOI and various coordinate bench decisions, clearly lay down that a jurisdictional notice under section 148 should be issued only by the Assessing Officer (AO) with whom jurisdiction has been vested by the Board. The Tribunal found that the defect in assumption of jurisdiction due to violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 is not curable. Consequently, the Tribunal sustained the ground raised in the assessee's cross objection. The assessment orders were quashed. As a consequential effect, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals and cross objections were filed by the revenue and the assessee, Monica Kumar, against the order dated 30.10.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC's order arose from assessment orders dated 27.03.2022 passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15. The revenue's appeals challenged the deletion of additions made under section 69A for alleged unsecured loans and ad-hoc disallowance of travelling and telephone expenses. The assessee's cross objections argued that the initiation of proceedings and the assessment orders were void due to violations of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 52(1), Delhi, and the subsequent assessment orders are null and void for violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which vests jurisdiction for assessments of non-corporate assessees with income of Rs. 20,00,000/- or more in metropolitan cities with the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning jurisdiction and CBDT instructions). Assessee's Contention: The assessment orders are void because the jurisdiction was assumed by the ITO, Ward 52(1), Delhi, despite CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 mandating that jurisdiction for cases with income above Rs. 20,00,000/- in metropolitan cities lies with the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner. The assessee relied on the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.03.2011 and judicial precedents including Ashok Devi Chand Vs. UOI (2023) 151 Taxmann.com 70 (Bombay) and various coordinate bench decisions. Revenue's Contention: There is no irregularity as the return was filed with ITO, W-52(1) and jurisdiction at the time of reopening vested with the same officer. The revenue argued that any such issue is curable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals and Cross Objections are preferred by the revenue and assessee against the order dated 30.10.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by NFAC, Delhi for AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that additions were made u/s 69A in the two assessment orders on account of alleged unsecured loans and adhoc disallowance of travelling and telephone expenses which have been deleted by ld. CIT(A) for which department is in appeal and assesse has filed cross objections wherein assesse alleges that the initiation of proceedings and consequential assessment orders dated 27.03.2022 u/s 147/144/144B of the Act are null and void as the same are in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.03.2011 and in this context our attention was drawn to page No. 3-7 of

ITA 5571& 4532/DEL/2026 CO 343 & 354/Del/2026 MONICA KUMAR the paper book for AY:2013l-14 where assesse has shown filing return of income of Rs.39,86,470/- and for AY: 2014-15 of Rs.42,17,600/-. The contention of ld. Counsel is that by the said circular the CBDT has vested jurisdiction for assessment in case of non-corporate assesse in cases of income reporting of Rs.20,00,000/- and more with Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, in the metropolitan cities to which assesse also belongs and it was submitted that as the jurisdiction in the case of assesse stands assumed while issuance of a notice by ITO, Ward 52 (1) Delhi, and accordingly, the assessment orders have been passed by the same officer, the assumption of jurisdiction is vitiated. 3. This is rebutted by the ld. DR by submitting that as in the return filed the same is shown to be filed with the ITO, W-52(1) and jurisdiction at the time of reopening vested with ITO, W-52(1) Delhi, so there is no irregularity and otherwise the same is curable.

4.

Now, based on the aforesaid admitted facts we find that the judicial precedent relied by ld. Counsel for the assesse lay down that jurisdictional notice u/s 148 should be issued only by AO with whom the jurisdiction has been vested by Board and the defect is not curable. Reliance in this regard placed in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Devi Chand Vs. UOI (2023) 151 Taxmann.com 70 (Bombay). Further, following the same legal premises the Coordinate Benches decisions in 452 ITR 43 Ashok Devi Chand

ITA 5571& 4532/DEL/2026 CO 343 & 354/Del/2026 MONICA KUMAR Jain vs. UOI, 452 ITR 43 dated 22.03.2022; M/s Kevin International Vs. DCIT vide 5363/Del/2017 dated 22.12.2023; Vipul Mittal Vs. DCIT vide ITA No 2850/Del/2019 dated 15.01.2025; Suman Devi Vs. ITO, Vide ITA No. 2817/Del/2024 dated 25.04.2025; Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA No. 8472/Del/2019 dated 04.07.2025; Arjun Rishi Vs. ITO, vide ITA No. 3020/Del/2023 dated 09.07.2025; Balraj Sharma Vs. ITO vide ITA No. 03.03.2026; Kshiti Sachdeva Prop. Alert International Vs. ITO, vide ITA No. 6133/Del/2025 dated 08.04.2026; and Harpal Singh Vs. ITO, vide ITA No. 7392/Del/2025 dated 10.08.2026 have held that assumption of jurisdiction and violation of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction and also consequential assessment order.

5.

In the light of aforesaid we are inclined to sustain the ground No. 1 of the cross objection of the assesse and the same are allowed and the impugned assessment order stand quashed. As a consequential effect, the appeals of the department deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, ordered.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- KRINWANT SAHAY ANUBHAV SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 25.09.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

ITA 5571& 4532/DEL/2026 CO 343 & 354/Del/2026 MONICA KUMAR

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →