Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed a cross-objection concerning assessment year 2015-16, arising from proceedings under section 143(3). Delays in filing both the appeal and cross-objection were condoned.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was a non-est in law because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an ITO without jurisdiction, and there was no evidence of jurisdiction transfer to the ACIT who ultimately framed the assessment.
Key Issues
Validity of assessment proceedings when a section 143(2) notice was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, without subsequent transfer of jurisdiction.
Sections Cited
143(3), 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
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
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.
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).
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.
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.