TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the assessee has taken the issue relating to validity of reassessment proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) who has held as under :- "The above grounds are on validity of reassessment proceedings. The appellant has raised various legal issues in support of the contention that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. The first legal objection is that the reassessment proceeding have been initiated by non-jurisdictional authority. In support of above contention, the copies of the order u/s. 148A(d)/ notice u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 has been placed on record which has been issued by ITO, Ward 22(1), Delhi whereas the jurisdiction over the appellant was with Circle under the charge of Range-22, Delhi. In support of the appellant's contention that the such initiation of proceedings by an authority not having jurisdiction over the assessee is not valid in law. I have considered the decisions cited by the appellant and more particularly in the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs DCIT 66 Taxmann.com 126 (Del), Jindal Photo Films vs DCIT 234 ITR 170 (Del) and also the binding CBDT Instruction dated 03/01/2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared returned by a Non Corporate assessee is above Rs. 20 lakhs, the jurisdiction will be of DC/AC. 3. Petitioner has filed return of income of about Rs. 64,34,663/- and therefore, the jurisdiction will be that of DC/AC and not ITO. Mr. Jain submitted that since notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by ITO, and not by DC/AC that is by a person who did not have any jurisdiction over Petitioner, such notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an officer who had no authority in law to issue such notice. 4. We have considered the affidavit in reply of one Mr. Suresh G. Kamble, ITO who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act. Said Mr. Kamble, ITO, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai admits that such a defective notice has been issued but according 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 sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 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 Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs Upto Rs. 30 lacs Above Rs. 30 lacs Non-corporate returns Upto Rs. 15 lacs Above Rs. 15 lacs Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion 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 assessee is up to Rs. 20 lakhs, then the jurisdiction will be of ITO and where the income declared returned by a Non Corporate assessee is above Rs. 20 lakhs, the jurisdiction will be of DC/AC. 3. Petitioner has filed return of income of about Rs. 64,34,663/-and therefore,....