PIONEER TOWN PLANNERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1655/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 November 2026AY 2011-123 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 order passed by the ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi, was unsustainable in law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act, which mandates that a transfer of a case from one Assessing Officer to another subordinate officer must be done after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after recording reasons. The Tribunal found that in the present case, no such order under Section 127 was passed for transferring the case from one Assessing Officer to another. Therefore, the ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi, lacked the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground and allowed the legal ground of appeal. No other grounds were pressed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-22, Delhi, for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee's primary contention, and the only ground argued, was that the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi, was illegal and without jurisdiction due to the absence of an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee highlighted that notices under Section 148 were issued by different officers (ITO, Ward 19(4) and ACIT, Circle 19(2)), reasons were recorded by ITO, Ward 19(4), and the assessment order was ultimately passed by ACIT, Circle 19(2) without a formal transfer order under Section 127.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi, is illegal and without jurisdiction in the absence of an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for transfer of the case. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that since no order under Section 127 was passed for transferring the case from one Assessing Officer to another, the ACIT, Circle 19(2), lacked the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. They pointed to the issuance of Section 148 notices by different officers and the eventual assessment by ACIT, Circle 19(2), as evidence of an improper transfer. The assessee relied on the procedural history, including the dates of notices and transfer. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that no order under Section 127 was required because the ITO/ACIT had concurrent jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127,Section 148,Section 151,Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta
Hearing: 14.08.2026Pronounced: 13.11.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(DELHI BENCH “A” : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1655/Del/2020 Asstt. Year : 2011-12 PIONEER TOWN PLANNERS PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(2), E-104, GK ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI PART-I, ROOM NO. 221, C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI – 110 048 NEW DELHI – 2 (PAN: AAECP6502F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 14.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.11.2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.9.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-22), Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised as many as 15 concise grounds of appeals, however, the ground no. 2 being legal in nature was argued, which read as under:- “That in the absence of order u/s. 127 of the Act, ACIT (19(2), had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. Hence, the assessment order passed is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.” 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assesse filed a chart of dates and event in the instant case and stated that on 26.3.2018 a notice u/s. 148 of the Act

was issued by the ITO, Ward 19(4), Delhi and another notice u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2018 was issued by the ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi. However, the reasons were recorded by ITO, Ward 19(4), Delhi and approval u/s. 151 of the Act was sought by the ITO, Ward 19(4), Delhi. He further submitted that on 28.8.2018 a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward 19(4), Delhi and vide order dated 13.09.2018, ITO, Ward 19(4), Delhi has disposed of the objections of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It was submitted that on 25.10.2018 the case was transferred from ITO, Ward 19(2), Delhi to ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi. On 30.12.2018 assessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act was passed by the ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi. In view of above factual matrix, he submitted that in the absence of order u/s. 127 of the Act, ACIT 19(2), Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order, thus, the assessment order passed is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that in the instant case no order u/s. 127 is required to be passed, because the ITO/ACIT has concurrent jurisdiction. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Before adjudicating the issue in hand, we may gainfully refer here the provisions of section 127(1) of the Act as under:- 127 Power to Transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. 5. On plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the competent authority, specified under section 127(1) of the Act, as referred above, after giving the assesse a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case

2 | P a g e

from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him, which has not been done in the instant case. Since no order u/s. 127 of the Act has been passed for transferring the case from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer, thus, in the absence of order u/s. 127 of the Act, the ACIT 19(2), Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order, accordingly, the assessment order passed is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed on this count. We hold and direct accordingly. Accordingly, the legal ground no. 2 is allowed. 6. Besides above ground, no other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 7. In the result, the instant assesseee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.11.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Date: 13.11.2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →