TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), New Delhi (in short 'the AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') in respect of Assessment Year-2015-16, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of assessment order on account of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 02.11.2017 was being time barred. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who has framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act has issued first notice on 02.11.2017, which was time barred as he was required to issue the notice on or before 30.09.2016 as per the time limit prescribed under the provisions of law for the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) has d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Ward-28(2), New Delhi, dated 28.07.2016, who was having no jurisdiction on the present case as as the case was being transferred to Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), New Delhi. A copy of said notice is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 6. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-21(1), Delhi in ITA No.124/2020, dated 08.05.2024, has considered its earlier decision delivered in the case of Abhishek Jain vs ITO,Ward-55(1), reported in (2018) 94 taxmann.com 355 (Del) relied by the Department and decided the legal issue in favour of assessee. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- "22. Therefore, in light of the legislative mandate enshrined under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n placed before us which may evidence a legitimate transfer of the assessee's case from DCIT, Central Circle-16/20, New Delhi to ITO Ward 21(1), New Delhi. Furthermore, we find no merit in the contention of the Revenue that by virtue of an order dated 15.11.2014 passed under Section 120 of the Act under the pen of ACIT read with CBDT notification dated 22.10.2014, the office of ITO Ward 21(1), New Delhi has inherent jurisdiction over the assessee. Such a position if accepted would lead to confusion and chaos as it would lead to a position where at one point, one or more assessing officers not only will have jurisdiction over the assessee but also can proceed with the assessment proceedings simultaneously. Such a situation cannot be countena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Department did not have jurisdiction in this case. 5. That being the position, the purported notice under Section 143(2) issued on 10.09.2013 was one without jurisdiction and cannot be regarded as a valid notice. The first notice, therefore, which was issued by an Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. This was issued clearly beyond the period of limitation which has been prescribed, i.e., beyond 30.09.2013 in this case. As such, the impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act is barred by time. The same is quashed." 8. In the present case, no valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued within the prescribed time limit by the Assessing Officer who has the jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport of the return filed by you. Yours faithfully (Anil Kumar Barolia) Income Tax Officer Ward-17(4), New Delhi Income Tax Officer Ward-17(4). C. R. Buildin New Delhi-1:0002 Scanned hv CamScanner Document 2 17 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2), DELHI To. PRIYANKA SINGHAL 149 149 ,TARUN ENCLAVE DELHI, DELHI 110034 ,Delhi India Dated: 28/07/2016 PAN Notice No: AY TBA/AST/S/143(2)/2016-17/1000191883(1) 2015.16 AIAPG7313G Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1967 Complete Scrutiny Sir/ Madam/ M/s. This is for your kind information that the return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 filed vid....