TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and liable to be quashed." 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the solitary issue of validity of learned ITO, Ward-26(1), Delhi assessment framed on 16.03.2025, learned counsel quotes the CBDT's landmark circular No. 1 of 2011 dated 31.1.2011 that going by the pecuniary jurisdiction of the departmental authorities for the purpose of framing assessment, it is clear that in metro cities any return involving more than Rs. 30 lakhs income disclosure had to be acted upon and assessed by the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner; as the case may be. However, Ld. AR has submitted that in the instant case the ITO, Ward 26(1), Delhi has exercised the jurisdiction of AO by issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.3.2024 (Paper Book Page No. 101). The Revenue fails to rebut this factual position. We note that the tribunal's in its recent order in M/s. Orchids Diamond Tools (P) Ltd. VS ITO (ITA No.2416/Del/2025) decided on 30th December, 2025, has already adjudicated the identical issue in assessee's favour and against the department by observing as under: "7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter, the jurisdiction was transferred to Circle 11 (2), Delhi on 21.07.2016 who was ultimately passed the assessment order after allowing the opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in its submissions as well as ld. DR objected to the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the present jurisdictional issue now instead of raising the same during assessment itself within one month from the date of receipt of the notice u/s 124 (3) of the Act. After considering the factual matrix in this case, we observed that similar issue under consideration is considered by the coordinate Bench in the case of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) wherein it was held as under :- "4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the additional grounds raised by the assessee go to the root of the matter challenging the jurisdictional per se. All the facts relevant for its adjudication are placed on record. Hence, in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383, we are inclined to admit the additional grounds and take up the same for its adjudication. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITO to DCIT, no fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle 4(1), Gurgaon. The assessment was ultimately framed under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 on 14.12.2017 by ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Gurgaon. It is pertinent to note that assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2016 by DCIT, Circle - 27(2), New Delhi. Hence, it was argued that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 issued by the ITO selecting the return of assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 for scrutiny is without jurisdiction and consequently, the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2017 required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on receipt of the notice. In the instant case, nowhere up to learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned AO. In our considered opinion, this argument of the learned DR is wrong in as much as section 124(3) of the Act talks only a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to him, PAN of Petitioner was lying with ITO Ward (12)(3)(1), Mumbai and it was not feasible to migrate the PAN having returned of income exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs to the charge of DCIT, Circle 12(3)(1), Mumbai, as the time available with the ITO 12(3)(1) was too short to migrate the PAN after obtaining administrative approval from the higher authorities by 31st March, 2019. 5. The notice under section 148 of the Act is jurisdictional notice and any inherent defect therein is not curable. In the facts of the case, notice having been issued by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the Petitioner, such notice in our view, has not been issued validly and is issued without authority in law. 6. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the notice dated 30th March, 2019. 7. Consequently the order dated 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection is also quashed and set aside. 8. Petition disposed." 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act deserves to be q....