NAFEES AHMAD,GONDA vs. ITO WARD-52(1), DELHI

Heard both the sides and perused the records.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 2,60,450/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,12,480/-. As per the financial transactions reported in the ITS, assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 18,29,000/- with Indian Overseas Bank at Gonda, UP, during the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18. Therefore, AO issued a notice u/s. 148 on 27.3.2021. The assessee was non compliant to notice u/s. 148 as well as notice u/s. 142(1). AO noted that since the Assessee failed to file return of income and failed to submit other relevant information, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B dated 30.3.2022 by treating the total cash deposits of RS. 18,29,000/- as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s. 69A of the Act which will be taxed u/s. 115BBE at special rates. Aggrieved with the action of the AO, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 18.11.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- “8.7 Further it is noticed that it is claim of appellant that he has not received any of notices of AO as he mistakenly provided email id of previous tax consultant as registered email id to which all notices are delivered during assessment proceedings. Then on what basis appellant is claiming that notice us 148 is wrongly issued by ITO, Delhi is not known. Coming to merits of contention, it is noticed that notice us 148 was issued by ITO, W-52(1), Delhi. However, PAN (Permanent Account Number) card can have an address that is different from the jurisdiction of the income tax assessment. The PAN card reflects the address provided during the application process, which can be a residential address, a business address, or any other address as specified by the applicant. However, the jurisdiction for income tax assessment is determined based on the taxpayer's residential status, income sources, and other factors. Therefore, it is possible for an individual or entity to have a PAN card registered at one address while being assessed for tax purposes in a different jurisdiction. In the present case, PAN of appellant is attached to ITO, Ward 52 based on residential address of appellant: Z 198 Near Masjid, New Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. It is noticed that office address of appellant is also located in Delhi which is A 137, Near Satyam Cinema, Ranjeet Nagar, Now Delhi though appellant has provided Gonda address in PAN database. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued by AO having jurisdiction over PAN number of Appellant. Hence notice u/s 148 can't be held to be invalid. Hence, Grounds No.2, 3 and 6 of the appellant are dismissed.”

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.3.2021 issued by the ITO, Ward 52(1), Delhi is without jurisdiction hence, based on this notice assessment order dated 30.3.2022 passed by the AO(NFAC) has become void ab initio. It was further submitted that assessee is an individual bearing PAN No. AIOPA0771A and he is engaged in the business of sale of fish in the local market at District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. His present / permanent address is at 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh – 271001, apart from this the appellant income tax e-filing portal is having the same address, but the ITO, Ward 52(1), Delhi has issued notice u/s. 148 in the same address and assessment order has also been passed on the same address and when the PAN was issued, the address of the assessee was House No. 155, Rakabganj, City Post Office, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh – 271001. Hence, it was submitted that since the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.3.2021 issued by the ITO, Ward 52(1), Delhi is without jurisdiction therefore, based on this notice, the assessment order dated 30.3.2022 passed by the AO(NFAC) is also void ab initio, which deserves to be quashed.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon perusing the records, it is noted that assessee is residing at 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh 271001, and his present and permanent address are same, which was updated in the e-filing portal of income tax department. The assessee has applied PAN at the address viz. House No. 155, Rakabganj, City Post Office, Gonda, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271001. The PAN No. AIOPA0771A has been issued by the Income Tax Department vide letter dated nil placed at page book page no. 38 vide Annexure-11. Further, on perusing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 which has been issued by the ITO, Ward 52(1), Delhi the 3 | P a g e address mentioned on it is 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, District, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271001, which is without jurisdiction and based on the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the reassessment order passed by the AO/NFAC, Delhi is also without jurisdiction hence, not valid in the eyes of law. It is also noted from the copy of ITR acknowledgement of the previous several years in which the assessee has mentioned the address at 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, District, Gonda, UP. In the facts of the case, I hold that the reassessment and the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act were issued by the AO who was not having valid jurisdiction. It is further noted that Ld. CIT(A) in his aforesaid findings has mentioned that PAN of the assessee is attached to ITO, Ward 52(1), Delhi based on residential address of the appellant being Z19B, Near Masjid, New Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi and office address of the appellant is also located in Delhi viz. A-137, Satyam Cinema, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. Though the assessee has provided Gonda address in PAN Data base. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 issued by the AO having jurisdiction over PAN number of appellant. Hence, notice u/s. 148 of the Act cannot be held to be invalid. I further note that before the Tribunal, the assessee filed an affidavit 2.9.2025 declaring that the aforesaid two addresses of residence and office of the assessee as mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding as aforesaid, are not pertained to the assessee and neither any branch office or business set up situated in the above address nor assessee residing in the above address. However, the assessee is a resident of 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh and assessee has not lived in New Delhi since his birth till date nor have done any business and 4 | P a g e nor doing any business in Delhi. In light of glaring facts of the case, I hold the reassessment order is invalid and hence, I quash the proceedings initiated based on notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the legal ground raised by the assessee stand allowed.

Since, relief has been granted to the assessee on jurisdiction issue by quashing the reassessment, the other grounds of appeal have become academic, therefore, are not deliberated upon.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.09.2025.