TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot sustainable. 2.3 That in the absence of valid sanction u/s. 151, the notice u/s. 148 is illegal and void ab initio. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3 At the threshold, it is noticed that there is delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. For this, Ld. AR for the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay. After hearing both the sides and perusing the application for condoantion of delay, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, hence, we condone the delay in dispute and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Coming to the solitary issue of validity of learned ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat, assessment framed on 30.3.2022, 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 for non-corporate returns, in respect of mofussil areas any return involving more than Rs. 15 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 submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is over and above Rs.20 lakhs. The assessment was completed by the DCIT, Circle 11(2), New Delhi u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, we observed that the jurisdiction lies only with DCIT, however the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the ITO instead of the present Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT. In this regard, the Assessing Officer also filed the submissions which are placed on record in which it was submitted that as per the PAN based jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over the case at the time of issue of notice with the ITO, Ward 11(3). Thereafter, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011." 6. In the instant case, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 12.04.2016 by ITO Ward 27(4), Delhi. In July, 2016, the ITO transferred the jurisdiction of the assessee from him to DCIT since the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 is more than 30,00,000/-. Copy of the said transfer memo is enclosed in page 5 of the paper book. After the transfer of jurisdiction from 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 und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 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....