RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 291/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2025AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO, Ward 36(4), and subsequently to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, was not accompanied by a valid order under section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assignment by the JCIT under section 120(5) was not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of section 127 for transferring jurisdiction. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd, the Tribunal concluded that without a valid order under section 127, the Assessing Officer in ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, did not acquire valid jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings initiated were quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee on the jurisdictional issue were allowed. Other grounds on merits were not adjudicated upon.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramesh Kumar Gupta, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessment proceedings were initiated by ITO, Ward 39(4), Delhi, with notices under section 143(2) and 142(1). The case was subsequently transferred to ITO, Ward 36(4), and then to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi. The latter issued further notices and passed an assessment order under section 144 on 21.12.2019. The assessee contended that these transfers were made without a valid order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rendering the subsequent Assessing Officer without valid jurisdiction. The notices were also sent to the email of the previous Chartered Accountant, who failed to participate in the proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer in ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, acquired valid jurisdiction to pass the assessment order for Assessment Year 2017-18, given the transfers from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO, Ward 36(4) and then to ITO, Ward 36(6), without a specific order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the transfer of the case from one Assessing Officer to another requires a mandatory order under section 127 of the Act. Reliance was placed on Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd vs ITO, Manoj Kumar Vs ACIT, Pr CIT vs Vimal Gupta, VIPUL Mittal vs DCIT, and Sanjay Kumar Singhal vs ACIT. The assessee further contended that an order under section 120(5) by the JCIT is not a substitute for section 127. The assessee also argued that section 124(3) is not applicable as there was no participation in proceedings from an authority without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on CIT vs. Lalitkumar Bardia and Kanwar Singh Saini. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 120(5),Section 127(1),Section 124(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.06.2025

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 18.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were initiated originally by ITO, Ward 39(4),

Delhi by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 16.08.2018 along with notice u/s 142(1) dated 14.08.2019. The notices are placed on record in the form of paper book. Further he submitted that the case of the asses

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →