PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX DELHI 10 vs. SHRI NASIR ALI

These applications are filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of 74 days’ delay in filing and 266 days’ delay in re- filing the present appeal. 2. Bearing in the mind the disclosures made, the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal and the delay of 266 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 133/2021 4. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 25 September 2019 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration: “(1)Whether the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in the eyes of the law in passing the impugned order, overlooking the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2024 at 14:07:24

Before us Mr. Maratha has essentially addressed submissions on the ambit of Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] to contend that since the respondent-assessee had failed to raise any question with respect to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer [“AO”] in accordance with the provisions made in Section 124(3) of the Act, it would clearly not amount to an illegality nor would it lead to irreversible consequences. According to Mr. Maratha, the ITAT has clearly erred in holding the order to be void ab initio. 6. In our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act and the questions surrounding that provision would have warranted further consideration, provided the appellant had been able to establish that the Addl. CIT Range-23, New Delhi was duly empowered to act as the AO. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2024 at 14:07:24

We note from the judgment rendered by the ITAT that the Addl. CIT Range-23 New Delhi is stated to have been assigned to be the AO by virtue of an order of the CIT dated 09 December 2013. 8. The ITAT however has noted that despite opportunity having been granted, the appellant had failed to place that authorisation for its perusal. It is the aforesaid aspect which has constrained the ITAT to observe that the mere mentioning of such an order in the assessment order which was framed would not suffice. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere with the views expressed by the ITAT. The appeal raises no substantial question of law and shall consequently stand dismissed.