GAJGAMINI INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD.. (SUCCESSOR TO VILOMA EQUITY SERVICES P. LTD.),ANDHERI (EAST) vs. ITO WARD 11(3)(3), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

ITA 5951/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the ITO was invalid due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the assessee's income exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs (and for corporate assessees, Rs. 30 lakhs as per CBDT instructions). Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which upheld an assessment order. The core of the assessee's argument was that the Assessing Officer (ITO) who issued the notice under Section 148 and passed the assessment order lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed by an Income Tax Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is null and void, and whether such a defect is curable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 115JB,Section 148,Section 124,Section 132,Section 132A,Section 153C,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN&

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal & Ajay Daga
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.07.2025Pronounced: 24.09.2025

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 25.09.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2 Gajgamini Investment & Finance P. Ltd ., Mumbai.

2.

At the very outset, Ld. AR has moved an application for admitting ground No. 1 raised in the present appeal as additional grounds as the same is legal in question and was not raised before any of the lower authorities.

3.

After having gone through the grou

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →