INCOMETAX OFFICER, GURGAON vs. JAMEEL AHMED, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3413/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 November 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, rendering the appeals inadmissible.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The CIT(A) had quashed the assessment orders, holding that defects in the issuance and service of notice under section 148(1) were jurisdictional and could not be cured under section 292BB.

What were the issues?

Whether defects in the issuance and service of notice under Section 148(1) are jurisdictional and incurable by Section 292BB/292B; and whether the appeals were admissible before the ITAT given the tax effect monetary limits set by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148(1),Section 292BB,Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.11.2024Pronounced: 08.11.2024

ORDER PER BENCH:

These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 08/05/2024 and 09/05/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), pertain to Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, on the following grounds of appeals:

Page 1 of 4 .- 3412 & 3413-2024 Jameel Ahmed ITA No.-3412/Del/2024

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by quashing the assessment order being invalid and bad in law on the ground that that the issuance and service of the notice under section 148(1) is jurisdictional aspect and therefore, a defect in the notice cannot be cured under section 292BB. However, as per section 292B of the IT Act, 1961 no return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.”

ITA No.-3413/Del/2024

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by quashing the assessment order being invalid and bad in law on the ground that that the issuance and service of the notice under section 148(1) is jurisdictional aspect and therefore, a defect in the notice cannot be cured under section 292BB. However, as per section 292B of the IT Act, 1961 no return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.”

2.

At the outset, it is noted that tax effect in both these appeals are below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the ITAT. The grievance of the Revenue shows that the tax effect would be less than Rs. 60 lacs, therefore, the present appeals filed by the Revenue are not admissible in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 09

Page 2 of 4 .- 3412 & 3413-2024 Jameel Ahmed of 2024 dated 17/09/2024. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.

3.

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08.11.2024

More judgments on Section 148(1)

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →