Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2014-15 against an order related to proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's primary contention was that the Section 148 notice was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice was issued by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, who, in light of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, did not have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice for a non-corporate return up to Rs. 15 lakhs. Therefore, the notice was considered without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Key Issues
Whether the Section 148 notice was issued by an officer having the requisite jurisdiction as per CBDT guidelines, and if not, whether the subsequent assessment proceedings are void ab initio.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. DCIT, Sh. Mukul Gupta HUF, 262 Deepali Pitampura, Circle-43(1), Saraswati Vihar, Delhi North West Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAGHM1173A (Appellant) (Respondent) 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 ORDER 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.
It emerges at the outset that the assessee has raised its first and foremost legal ground challenging jurisdiction of the learned 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.
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 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 jurisdiction over the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI (supra) in similar facts after referring to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011(supra) had held that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. If, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, 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 jurisdiction, hence, liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly. 2 | P a g e