TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment proceedings were valid when the assessee's returned income fell within the monetary limit for allocation to the Income-tax Officer under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011.
Analysis: The assessee had declared income below the monetary threshold prescribed for non-corporate returns in metro cities. On the facts recorded, the relevant CBDT instruction required such cases to be handled by the Income-tax Officer and not by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Since the notice under section 148 was issued by an without the prescribed jurisdiction, the defect went to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction. The reassessment proceedings founded on that notice could not survive.
Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the reassessment was annulled for want of jurisdiction in issuing the notice.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a CBDT instruction validly assigns cases on the basis of monetary limits, a reassessment notice issued by an outside the prescribed allocation is without jurisdiction and the proceedings based on it are vitiated.
TaxTMI 
