TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as delayed by 05 days 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 on 16.12.2025, appeal memo regarding the appeal filed by the revenue was served upon the assessee as per which hearing was fixed on 19.01.2026. Assessee engaged new counsel and on the fixed date the case was adjourned for 21.01.2026. Thereafter the counsel examined the records and on the advice of counsel, the Assessee filed the present Cross-Objections raising purely legal issues which goes to the root of the matter. It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is thus requested that delay being bonafide, deserves to be condoned and cross objection filed be admitted for adjudication. 4. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the cross objection delayed by only 05 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapses of the litigant concerned, that alone is not enough to turn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as with ACs/DCs, Circle Delhi however, the jurisdiction was assumed by the ITO Ward 41(4), Delhi for assessing the income of the assessee for impugned assessment year by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Since the correct jurisdiction lies with ACs/DCs of Circle Delhi and it is beyond the jurisdiction of ITO ward 41(4), Delhi, to issue the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act to assess the income of the assessee, therefore, the jurisdiction assumed vide notice u/s 143(2) dt. 22.09.2018 is bad in law and the subsequent assessment order passed by the AO having no jurisdiction over the assessee is bad in law. 11. 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 relevant observations of the hon'ble court are as under: 1. "This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order dated 23rd December 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 1211/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2006-07. 2. Although other grounds have been pressed by the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment. 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 the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward- 9(4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that in case of met....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice 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. Garments, in ITA No. 1000/2015, order dated 30.03.2017 has examined this aspect on the basis of numerous judicial pronouncements and while considering the question, if the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issued by an authority not having jurisdiction, would be valid by referring to section 292BB of the Act, has h....