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

PDF

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

Facts

A search and seizure operation was conducted on the "OM KOTHARI group". During the search, incriminating documents and digital data were found, pertaining to unaccounted cash transactions related to the sale of flats in the "PALLACIA" project. The assessee, Sonu Dusad, an NRI, purchased a flat and allegedly paid "on money" in cash. Notices were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur, but the assessee claimed non-residence and no income in India. The assessing officer passed an assessment order without following the procedure under Section 144C for non-residents.

Held

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 153C and the subsequent assessment order were issued without jurisdiction as there was no order transferring jurisdiction from Delhi to Jaipur. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee's claim of non-residence was undisputed. The initial dismissal by the CIT(A) on the grounds of delay was set aside, and the delay was condoned. The primary issue of jurisdiction was decided in favor of the assessee.

Key Issues

Whether the assessment proceedings initiated by the Jaipur Income Tax authorities were without jurisdiction due to the lack of a valid order transferring jurisdiction from Delhi, and whether the assessment order was passed without following mandatory procedures for non-residents.

Sections Cited

144C, 153C, 127, 69, 115BBE, 271(1)(c), 144, 142(1), 124, 132, 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 ;

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.

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.