TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. AO is an illegal order, since; a) The assessment is made by ITO ward 28(1), without issue of any valid notice u/s 143(2). b) The notices issued u/s 143(2) by ITO ward 31(4) dated 16.08.2018 and by ACIT, Cir.31(1) dated 12.09.2018 are notices by non-jurisdictional AO's. c) There is no order u/s 127 for transfer of jurisdiction between various AOs ultimately, confining the jurisdiction to a non-jurisdictional AO ward 28(1). d) As per CBDT notification ward ITO can assess incomes upto Rs. 30 lacs. AO Ward - 28(1) had no jurisdiction to assess income of Rs. 91.05 lacs declared by the Appellant. ii) That the assessment made by a non-jurisdictional AO, even without valid notice u/s 143(2) is an illegal assessment which is to be quashed. 3 i) That the correct jurisdiction to assess the income of Rs. 91.05 lacs of a director of a company (One World Realtech Pvt Ltd.) lies with the ACIT corporate charge with Pro CIT Delhi-7. ii) That the assessment made by a non-corporate charge, non- jurisdictional AO be annulled. 4 That on the facts of the case and in law Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in dismissing the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examination on the following reasons :- (a) cash deposit and transaction in property; (b) capital gains/loss on sale of property; and (c) investment in immovable property. 4. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee through e-portal. In response, assessee filed relevant details. Since the assessee has raised various legal grounds, we shall deal with the same hereunder. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- S. No. Contentions of Ld. AO Submissions of Appellant 1 In the assessment order for AY 2016-17, closing balance of cash and imprest account is not stated-so not accepted Closing balance of cash in hand and imprest account are never reported in the assessment order, which gives the income assessed as per ITR and additions made, if any with reasons. 2 If you had noticed the error in feeding of A&L schedule for AY 2016-17, why revised return was not filed? There was no occasion to file revised return as the appellant came to know of the error only when pointed out by the Ld. AO during AY 2017-18, by that time, return for AY 2016-17 already assessed u/s 143(3), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 143(2) and 127 has to be strictly followed by all Assessing Officers and Appellate Authorities during the course of assessment / appellate proceedings in terms of the Income Tax Act. 3.2 When a statue prescribes the authority with whom the power is vested, it is only that authority which can exercise that power. By consent of parties, the statutory prescription cannot be waved nor vested with another authority. As held in Vijay Nathulal Sharma Vs. DCIT (2025) 472 ITR 535 (AP) - this is the law as already settled under various Apex Court decisions. 3.3 When power is given to do certain think in a certain way, it must be done in that way alone and not otherwise, as held in the case of Malay Kar Vs. Union of India (2025) 472 ITR 714 (Orissa). Thus, the circulars, directions and guidelines issued u/s 119, 120 and others, being a delegated legislation, are to be strictly followed by the Assessing Authorities. These guidelines, circulars and directions are binding on the Assessing Officers as held under various judicial decisions including the case of Uco bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC). The limits fixing the pecuniary jurisdiction by CBDT are to be stric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced on record. We observe that assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer, Ward 28 (1), Delhi vide order dated 30.12.2019. We observe that as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 u/s 119 of the Act in the present case, the assessee has declared an income of Rs. 91,05,020/- and as per the Instruction, income upto Rs. 30,00,000/- is with the ITOs and anything above Rs. 30,00,000/-, assessment has to be completed by ACs/DCs. In the given case, we observed that as per the income declared by the assessee, the jurisdiction falls under ACs/DCs. In the given case, the assessment was completed by ITO, Ward 28 (1), Delhi. The revenue has not brought on record any order passed u/s 127 for transfer of jurisdiction. Considering the peculiar facts on record, we observe that actual jurisdiction lies with ACs/DCs and it is beyond the jurisdiction of ITOs. Therefore, notice u/s 143(2) to assess the income of the assessee is beyond the jurisdiction of the ITO. Therefore, the jurisdiction notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and accordingly even assessment order passed with wrong jurisdiction is bad in law. In this regard, we rely on the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ACT, 1961-INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES- INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1)), DATED 31-1- 2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned har....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d opinion, this argument of the learned DR is wrong in as much as section 124(3) of the Act talks only about territorial jurisdiction, whereas the issue involved here is pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act could be taken shelter by the Revenue only when legal valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the Revenue. In the instant case, notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act on 12.04.2016 by ITO is not legal as he did not possess jurisdiction over the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 in as much as the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra by the decision of Hon'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 ....