AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 14.12.2017 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal before us: 1. "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon [briefly "the CIT(A)"] has erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards salary paid to Ms. Asha Modi & Ms. Prarthna Modi, Director of the Appellant company. It was not appreciated that the Directors played a very important role in running the day to day business of the Appellant. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings from ITO Ward-27(4) Gurgaon to ACIT Circle-4(1) Gurgaon, cannot provide a valid jurisdiction to ACIT Circle-4(1), consequentially, the impugned asstt. order framed by ACIT Circle-4(1) is without jurisdiction and illegal. Additional G.No.2 That in view of the fact of returned income more than Rs. 30,00,000/-, the correct jurisdiction lies from day 01 only with DCIT/ACIT, in view of CBDT instruction No.1/2011[F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1)1] effective w.e.f. 01.04.2011, hence in the absence of statutory notice U/s. 143(2) issued by DCIT/ACIT, the impugned asstt. is without jurisdiction and illegal. Additional G.No.3 That under the facts and circumstances, the enhancement of 10. Rs. 21,73,500/- made for "dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the matter challenging the jurisdictional per se. All the facts relevant for its adjudication are placed on record. Hence, in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383, we are inclined to admit the additional grounds and take up the same for its adjudication. 5. We find that assessee's returned income for the A.Y. 2015- 16 was Rs. 37,78,510/- hence, the jurisdiction of the assessee should lie with ACIT/DCIT since the returned income had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-, in view of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the said Instruction No.1/2011 [F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011 is hereby reproduced:- "SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable with effect from 1-4-2011." 6. In the instant case, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 12.04.2016 by ITO Ward 27(4), Delhi. In July, 2016, the ITO transferred the jurisdiction of the assessee from him to DCIT since the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 is more than 30,00,000/-. Copy of the said transfer memo is enclosed in page 5 of the paper book. After the transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to DCIT, no fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle 4(1), Gurgaon. The assessment was ultimately framed under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 on 14.12.2017 by ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Gurgaon. It is pertinent to note that assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI reported in 452 ITR 43 (Bom). In this case, very same issue was addressed in the light of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011[F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] Dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder: "1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2012-13 and order passed on 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection to reopening on various grounds. 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income Tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such notice. According to Petiti....