SANJAY VERMA AND SONS HUF,HARIDWAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1(3)(1), HARIDWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 189/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) who issued the Section 143(2) notice lacked jurisdiction, as the assessee's disclosed income of Rs. 48,07,250/- exceeded the ITO's prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for non-corporate returns in mofussil areas, as per CBDT Circular No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment was deemed unsustainable and quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 challenged the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary legal ground was the alleged invalidity of the assessment due to the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the assessment was valid given that the Section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 15.01.2026Pronounced: 06.02.2026
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2025-26/1079182513(1), dated 01.08.2025, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case filed perused.

2.

We notice at the outset from a perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant raises its first and foremost legal ground challenging legality of the impugned assessment/reassessment for want of a valid section 143(2) notice.

3.

Learned departmental representative invites our attention to page 8 in the paper-book that the ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Haridwar had indeed issued section 143(2) notice to him which followed the impugned assessment dated 17.12.2018 framed by the DCIT herein.

4.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments as going by the CBDT’s Circular No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 that the board itself prescribed for non-corporate returns in mofussil areas and the Income Tax Officer(s) “ITOs” had jurisdiction of dealing with income tax returns declared up to Rs.10 lakhs only. We reiterate that the assessee had disclosed income of Rs.48,07,250/-. That being the case, the ITO who had issued section 143(2) notice to the assessee lacked jurisdiction which renders the impugned assessment itself as not sustainable in law in very terms. Quashed in very terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →