TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred both in law and on facts In upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act without appreciating that the same were without jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. 1.1 That tile learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that initiation of proceedings was mechanical and without any application of mind much less independent application of mind, therefore the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was an invalid notice and assumption u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act has no application to the facts of the appellant and therefore assumption u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. 1.3 That in absence of any valid approval obtained under section 151 of the Act, initiation of proceedings U/s 147 of the Act and assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such. 1.4 That the learned Commissioner of Income "Tax (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, 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 19 (2), Delhi. 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 Vipul Mittal vs. DCIT in ITA No.2850/Del/2019 dated 15.01.2025 wherein it was held as under :- "14. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that assessee has filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 59,68,220/-. As per the CBDT Instruction No.01/2011, the jurisdiction over the assessee's case lies only with Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Income Declared (Mofussil areas) Income Declared (Metro cities) ITOS ACS/DCS ITOS DCS/ACS Corporate returns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 Petitioner as per instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31st January, 2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, where income declared/returned by any Non-Corporate a....