Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arose against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The core issue was the validity of the assessment, as the section 143(2) notice was issued by ITO, Ward-39(1), while the assessment was framed by ITO, Ward Exemption-2(4).
Held
The Tribunal held that there was no record of the ITO issuing the section 143(2) notice having the assessment jurisdiction, nor was there any section 127 transfer order. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that an inherent lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice could not be subsequently validated.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the assessment due to a lack of proper jurisdiction in issuing the section 143(2) notice.
Sections Cited
144, 143(2), 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023–24/1060454280(1) dated 02.02.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned assessment itself. This is for the precise reason that it was the learned ITO, Ward-39(1), Delhi who had issued section 143(2) notice to the assessee on 29.09.2018 (pages 34 & 35) whereas the impugned
That being the case, the Revenue vehemently argues that given the fact that the assessee is assessed in Exemption Ward, the impugned assessment has rightly been framed in it’s hands.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions supporting the impugned assessment. We make it clear that there is not even an iota in the case record that the learned ITO issuing section 143(2) notice was vested with the assessment jurisdiction herein. Nor there is any section 127 transfer order indicated in the case file. We thus quote Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 466 ITR 26 (Del.), ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxmann.com 213 (Bom.) to hold that such an inherent lack of jurisdiction in issuance of section 142(2) notice could not be subsequently validated in the department’s favour to quash the assessment dated 20.12.2019 in very terms.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.