ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. MUKESH KUMAR MOHTA, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4886/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 January 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned reassessment was a non-est in the eyes of law. This decision was based on two primary grounds. Firstly, the Section 143(2) notice was issued by the ITO, Ward-63, New Delhi, whereas the assessment itself was framed by the ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi. The Revenue failed to demonstrate the jurisdiction of the ITO to issue such a notice in relation to the assessment framed by a different authority. Secondly, the Revenue could not provide any evidence of a transfer of jurisdiction from the ITO to the ACIT, which would have empowered the latter to frame the impugned assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment. All other pleadings were rendered academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

What were the facts?

The case involves the Revenue's appeal (ITA No.4886/Del/2024) and the assessee's cross-objection (C.O. No.93/Del/2025) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The dispute arises from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) on July 29, 2024, concerning assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days, and the assessee's cross-objection was filed with a delay of 73 days. Both delays were condoned. The primary issue raised by the assessee in their cross-objection concerns the validity of the reassessment framed on December 29, 2017.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment framed on December 29, 2017, is valid for want of a proper Section 143(2) notice, considering it was issued by the ITO, Ward-63, New Delhi, while the assessment was framed by the ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 143(2) and jurisdiction). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argues that the Section 143(2) notice was issued by an authority (ITO, Ward-63) who did not frame the assessment (ACIT, Circle-63(1)). They contend there was no transfer of jurisdiction from the ITO to the ACIT, rendering the assessment a nullity. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue could not explain the ITO's jurisdiction to issue the Section 143(2) notice, given the assessee's returned income of Rs. 58,73,920/-. They also did not provide evidence of a transfer of jurisdiction to the ACIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.01.2026Pronounced: 16.01.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.4886/Del/2024
C.O. No.93/Del/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This Revenue’s appeal C.O. No. 93/Del/2025 for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067097678(1), dated 29.07.2 C.O. No.93/Del/2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Delay(s) of 24 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant appeal and that of 73 days in filing the assessee’s cross objections are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

We advert to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground in his cross-objection C.O. No.93/Del/2025 challenging the validity of the impugned reassessment framed on 29.12.2017 itself for want of a valid section 143(2) notice. This is for the precise reason that it was the ITO, Ward-63, New Delhi who had issued the same on 26.07.2016 whereas the assessment in question came to be framed by learned ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi.

4.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly explain the learned ITO’s jurisdiction to issue section 143(2) notice as the assessee’s returned income herein was Rs.58,73,920/-. There is further no denial to the fact that no transfer of jurisdiction from “ITO” to learned “ACIT” has been placed up before us so as to conclude that the latter authority herein was empowered to frame C.O. No.93/Del/2025 the impugned assessment. We are accordingly of the considered view that on both these counts the impugned assessment is a non- est one in the eyes of law. Quashed accordingly. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →