TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total income was assessed at INR 3,40,09,154/- by making addition of INR 1,40,51,028 u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and further disallowance of INR 1,59,99,726/- was made being 5% of the expenses claimed. 3. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 23.02.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the additions / disallowance made. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal and confirming the additions without providing proper opportunity of being heard, especially when additional evidences were admitted but did not wait for receiving of remand report ITNS-51 from the Ld. AO, which is in violation of the principal of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not properly adjudicating the additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 despite admitting the same, and failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO did not furnish any remand report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd their welfare purposes in the ordinary course of business, even there is no such addition in any of the previous year relating to same business. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by not considering the evidences and supporting documents available on record with Ld. AO submitted during the original assessment proceedings that could substantiate the claim of the appellant. 10. The appellant seeks leave to amend or addition to the grounds of appeal, any time before hearing of the appeal." 5. This appeal was filed delayed by 440 days by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the assessee reaffirming the facts stated in the application are filed. It is stated that the order of LD. CIT(A) was served on e-filing portal and assessee due to his health was confined to bed and thus the appeal could not be filed in time. Assessee also filed medical reports in support of the claim. It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely due to the above unavoidable circumstances. It is thus requested that delay being bonafide, dese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law. The notice as well as subsequent proceedings including impugned assessment order dated 23/12/2019 based on notice issued by ITO without jurisdiction are void-ab initio and need to be quashed." "3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,40,51,028/- and Rs. 1,59,99,726/- to the Appellant's total income, as the said addition is made without reference to and application of any valid charging section/provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An addition cannot be sustained in law merely by disbelieving the explanation of the Appellant without invoking the appropriate deeming or charging section under which the income is sought to be taxed," "4. The Learned Assessing Officer has further erred in making the said addition of Rs. 1,40,51,028/- and Rs. 1,59,99,726/- by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, liable to be set aside/quashed. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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. 38,98,400/- and as per the Instruction, income upto Rs. 20,00,000/- is with the ITOs and anything above Rs. 20,00,000/-, 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 however the assessment was completed by ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon. 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. 16. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Vimal Gupta reported in 2017 (10) TMI 1670 (Delhi) held the assessment order as invalid where the notice u/s 148 was issued by the authority having no jurisdiction over the assessee. The rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers Ltd in ITAT/39/2023 IA No.GA/1/2023 dated 15.03.2023, wherein, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as follows: "The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether there is valid notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act for commencing the scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal has noted the facts and rendered a finding that on the date when the case was selected for scrutiny, the authority who issued the notice namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.9(4), Kolkata did not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction was with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The following findings has been recorded by the Tribunal: Therefore, the legal ground stands to be admitted and the same relates to invalid notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act. It is a settled position of law that for carrying out the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the statutory requirement of serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is must and in absence thereof the subsequent proceedings become invalid. In the case of assessee, the facts are that the assessee has declared income of Rs. 48,47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has been transferred to ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut, from ITO, Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut, as per CBDT Instruction No. 05/2011 dated 31.01.2011 vide which jurisdiction of noncorporate returns above Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ACIT/DCIT and upto Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ITO. 5.1 Now, admittedly, the notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021, copy of which is placed at page 7 of the paper book, is issued by ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut. Thus, certainly, this Revenue Officer did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as vested by the Board vide CBDT Instructions No. 01/2011 dated 31.03.2011. 5.2 In this context, the coordinate Bench order in the case of J. Mitra & Brothers vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3643/Del/2023 decided on 10.04.2024 has been relied by the ld. AR wherein the coordinate Bench, relying another decision in the case of Kelvin International vs. DCIT, ITA No. 5363/Del/2017, order dated 22.12.2023, has held that the exercise of jurisdiction of Revenue Officer who did not have the jurisdiction given by the CBDT Instructions cannot be sustained and the assessment order is vitiated. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT-II, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Proprietor M/s M.R.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion issued by CBDT (supra). This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain (supra), of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shree Shoppers (supra) and hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Vimal Gupta (supra) as also the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sapna Rastogi (supra), it is held that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and consequential assessments are also bad in law. Accordingly, additional Ground of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 20. Since we have allowed assessee's additional legal grounds of appeal thus, the other grounds of appeal including other additional grounds of appeal on merits of the additions /disallowance made, need no adjudication. 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.03.2026. ============= Document 1 MTC ERSTV/ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA वितà¥à¤¤ मंतà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤²à¤¯/ MINISTRY OF FINANCE aTER PENT/ INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 1(3) GURGAON ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤ करने अथवा साकà¥à¤·à¥à¤¯ पà¥à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤ कराने का अवसर पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ किया जा रहा है जिस पर आप उकà¥à¤¤ आयकर विवरणी के समरà¥à¤¥à¤¨ में निरà¥à¤à¤° हैं/रहेंगे। 2. In this regard, an opportunity is being given to you to produce or cause to produce any evidence on which you may like to rely in support of the said return of income by 17/09/2018 at 05:00 PM. 3. उपरà¥à¤¯à¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ निरà¥à¤¦à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤Ÿ पà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤£ / सूचना को आपको ऑनलाइन माधà¥à¤¯à¤® से इलेकà¥....