RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1), DELHI, DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMANRamesh Kumar Gupta, vs.
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
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, ld. 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
2
(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 assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO Ward 36(4) and finally the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi who has issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.10.2019, 10,11,2019 and 16.12.2019 and finally passed the impugned assessment order on 21.12.2019. He further submitted that all the abovesaid notices were sent to the email id of the old Chartered
Accountant who failed to participate in the assessment proceedings and due to this, the impugned assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act.
He further brought to our notice page 1 of the assessment order at para 2
wherein the AO has clearly brought on record that juri iction notices u/s 143(2) were issued by ITO, Ward 39(4) and subsequently the case was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(4) and finally ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi and he has mentioned that the case was assigned through an order dated
23.10.2019 by JCIT, Range 36 u/s 120(5) of the Act. He submitted that how the case of the assessee was transferred from Ward 39(4) to 36(4) without there being any order u/s 127(1) of the Act, in absence of the valid order u/s 127, the authority to whom the case was transferred i.e.
(TRIB) 158 (ITAT-DELHI), Pr CIT vs Vimal Gupta ITA 515/2016 (Del),
VIPUL Mittal vs DCIT ITA No.2850/DEL/2019 and Sanjay Kumar
Singhal vs ACIT 2025 (5) TMI 282 (ITAT-DELHI).
3. Further ld. AR submitted that juri iction was transferred from Ward
36(4) to Ward 36(6), Delhi and AO has recorded that the transfer of case is on the basis of JCIT order u/s 120(5) of the Act. He submitted that the order passed by JCIT u/s 120(5) is no substitute to the order u/s 127 of the Act as the juri iction of the case is only be transferred through order u/s 127 of the Act. Even though if transfer of juri iction is claimed through Notifications/Directions u/s 120 of the Act in view of the observations of Hon’ble juri ictional High Court in the case of Raj
Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. (supra). It is a settled law the assessment order has to be passed by the only authority having juri iction over an assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.
4
Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxmann.com 213 (Bombay)) has held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer juri iction upon the Assessing Officer who otherwise was not Assessing
Officer of the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar
Singh Saini (2012) 4 SCC 307 (SC) in Para 13 has held that there can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of juri iction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the party nor by a superior court. On the possible defence by the Revenue on the restriction of raising objection within 30 days of receipt of notice as per provision of sec 124(3) also does not come into play as the assessee had not participated in the proceeding. The provision of section 124(3) are relevant where there is dispute on the juri iction of the authority issuing any notice but where the assessee is in receipt of notice from an authority not vested with juri iction over him either u/s 124(1)/127, or by any notification or circular of by CBDT instruction, no duty is cast on the assessee to call in question juri iction of the authority as per mandate of section 124(3) of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Raipur Bench in the Case of Dr Hari Singh
Chandel vs ITO ITA No.287/Rpr/2016 dated 17.10.2022 (Para 19& 20 at pages 18-21) where following authorities were cited in support of the above view:
5
V.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., ITA No.79 of 2015 dated
01.03.2017 (All)
CIT vs Ramesh D Patel 362 ITR 492 (Guj)
Balaji Enterprise vs. ACIT (2021) 187 ITD 111 (Gau.)
OSL Developers (P) Ltd. vs. TO, (2021) 211 TTJ (Kol) 621
Other grounds on merits, no submissions were made by the ld. AR of the assessee. We also restrict to adjudicate on the juri ictional issue. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the assessment proceedings were initiated originally by ITO, Ward 39(4), Delhi and the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO Ward 36(4) and finally the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi. We observe from the assessment order that juri iction notices u/s 143(2) were issued by ITO, Ward 39(4) and subsequently the case was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(4) and finally ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi and AO has mentioned that the case was assigned through an order dated 23.10.2019 by JCIT, Range 36 u/s 120(5) of the Act. We observe that the case of the assessee was transferred from Ward 39(4) to 36(4) without there being any order u/s 127(1) of the Act and in absence of the valid order u/s 127, the authority to whom the case was 6 transferred i.e. ITO, Ward 36(4), Delhi does not acquire valid juri iction. In this regard, we find force from the decision of Hon’ble juri ictional High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd (supra) wherein it is held that where the case was transferred from one AO having juri iction over the assessee to another AO who otherwise did not have juri iction in terms of the direction of the Board under Section 120 and 124 of the Act, then transfer order under Section 127 is mandatory, without which the juri iction of the AO cannot be conferred to pass any assessment order. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee relying on aforesaid decisions and relying on the decision of Hon’ble juri ictional High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd (supra), we are inclined to hold that valid juri iction was not acquired by the Assessing Officer in ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, hence the entire proceedings initiated are quashed and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of September, 2025. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 22.09.2025
TS
7
ITA No.291/DEL/2025