SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 506/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)56 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on High Court directions. It was held that the notice issued under Section 153C by the Jaipur ITO lacked jurisdiction as the assessee's case was not transferred from Delhi to Jaipur.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were related to assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22. The original assessment orders were passed under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals on grounds of delay and lack of jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

The key issues were whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on delay without considering the facts and High Court directions, and whether the assessment notice under Section 153C was issued without jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 144,Section 127,Section 153D,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(29)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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 505 to 509/JP/2025

For Appellant: Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 12/11/2025

order of the ld. CIT(A).

So as far as it relates to the merits of the dispute is concerned she sought time and she also sought time for the contention of the assessee for order u/s. 127 of the Act for transferring the case from Delhi to Jaipur. She submitted that she has requested the DG system to provide the correct details and thereby in the interest of justice time was given to ld. DR.

Thereafter ld. DR from time filed the submission and sought time for the provide that order as the same was not provided to her even though she made request for that order.

Thus, it is undisputed fact that there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur and thereby the notice so issued by the ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur lacs jurisdiction. The issue of deciding the legal ground of jurisdiction is decided by our own High Court in the case of Deep Channel Kothari vs. CIT [ 35 Taxman 223(Rajasthan) ] where in the High court held that ;

5.

In view of these facts, circumstances and authoritative observations, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objections as to the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance there of, to be raised. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the department.

6.

It is well settled law that the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction is decided first. Only after its decision holding that the Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction, other questions relating to the merits of the case arise for decision otherwise not.

7.

The Tribunal has power to take additional evidence. After taking evidence which is considered necessary, the said point regarding lack of jurisdiction can well be decided by the Tribunal. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient for this Court to decide the remaining questions. The case observes to be sent back to the learned Tribunal for first deciding the said point regarding the lack of jurisdiction.

8.

Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Remaining questions need not be answered because of our answer to question No. 1. raised by the assessee. Since we have considered the ground of jurisdiction and thereby quashed the order in dispute therefore the ground no. 7 to 11 becomes academic. Ground no. 12 premature and ground no. 13 being general does not require our finding.

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in stands allowed.

15.

The facts of the case in to 509/JP/2025 are similar to the facts of the case in and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in these appeal Nos. 506 to 509/JP/2025 are similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds and arguments raised by both the parties in those appeals. Hence, the bench feels that the decision shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Sonu Dusad in to 509/JP/2025.

In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in to 509/JP/2025 are also allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12/11/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Sonu Dusad, Delhi 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 505 to 509/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →