MUKUL GUPTA HUF,WEST DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), CIVIC CENTRE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Mukul Gupta HUF, 262 Deepali Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi, Delhi Vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi PAN: AAGHM1173A (Appellant)
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2024-25/1071769354(1), dated
01.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee has raised its first and foremost legal ground challenging juri iction of the learned
Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA
Sh. Rajat Garg, CA
Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
29.10.2025
Date of pronouncement
29.10.2025
2 | P a g e
ACIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi who had issued his section 148 notice dated 31st March, 2021 for the sole reason that her declared income as per the return filed on 24th July, 2014 was Rs.5,38,650/ only -; and, therefore, going by the CBDT’s landmark circular no. 1/2011
dated 31st January, 2011, the competent authority in such an instance would be an Income Tax Officer only since involving a non- corporate return up to Rs.15 lakhs.
3. This being the clinching factual position, the tribunal hereby see merit in the assessee’s instant legal ground to reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions in light of the learned coordinate bench’s order in ITA No.8472/Del/2019, dated 4th July, 2025 in Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reading as under:
“8. We further observe that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated
31.03.2015 (at page 100 of the paper book) was issued by Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax. In light of aforesaid CBDT Instructions even the Officer issuing said notice was not having juri iction over the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok
Instruction No. 1/2011(supra) had held that the notice issued u/s.
148 of the Act was without juri iction. If, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without juri iction, any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab initio.
Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipul Mittal vs DCIT (supra). In light of facts of the case and documents on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is without juri iction, hence, liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 | P a g e
Since, the appeal of assessee is allowed on juri ictional issue, the grounds assailing additions on merits have become academic, hence, not deliberated at this stage.
I hereby adopt the foregoing detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned reopening in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29th October, 2025. RK/-