ANITA ,DELHI V. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 931/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Anita, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which stemmed from an assessment made by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Faridabad under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the ITO to pass the assessment order, which was contested based on the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 that delineates the monetary limits for different income tax authorities to pass assessment orders. The Tribunal admitted an additional legal ground concerning the jurisdictional error and, after considering precedents and the specific facts of the case, quashed the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837649 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI, Vipul Mittal vs. DCIT, Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M.R. SAHU
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 931/Del/2025 A.Y. : 2017-18 ANITA, Vs. Assessing Officer, H.No. 193, A, Laxmi Park, Ward 1(1), Near Shiv Mandir, CGO Complex, Opp. Union Bank, New Industrial Township 4, Delhi – 110 041 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (PAN: BAIPA5844D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. M.R. Sahu, CA Department by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Faridabad/11167/2019-20 dated 21.8.2023. Assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Faridabad u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 relevant to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 476 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for this the assessee has filed the petition for Printed from counselvise.com 2 condonation wherein, it was stated that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee viz. her husband met with a serious accident that resulted in critical injuries, rendering him bedridden and unable to manage financial, legal and personal affairs and she was also suffering from severe knee joint problems. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we are of the view that reasonable cause has not been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, however, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, we are taking a lenient view and accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition that Assessee should deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with the “Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana”) towards cost on account of inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 3. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that Assessee filed an Application dated 27.6.2025 which has been placed on record, requesting for admission of following additional legal ground in the instant matter which is purely legal and goes to the root of the matter and needs to be admitted, on the anvil of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). “That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 1(1), Faridabad erred in initiating and concluding the assessment disregarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of money limit specified in the binding CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 dated 31.01.2011, thus the initiation Printed from counselvise.com 3 and completion of assessment by a non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without authority of law and void ab inito and deserves to be quashed.” 4. We have heard both the parties at length and perused their respective submissions alongwith the case file. We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that the relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be investigated and also the above mentioned additional ground goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, on the anvil of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the aforesaid additional ground and adjudicating the same in the foregoing paragraphs. 5. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that from the original return filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 with ITO, Ward 1(1), Faridabad with the gross total income returned by the assessee is Rs. 16,77,970/- and assessment was also framed u/s. 143(3) by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Faridabad dated 23.12.2019. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in view of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 [F.No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I), dated 31.1.2011 the assessment order should have been passed by the ACIT/DCIT, because the assessee is a non-corporate return assessee and has declared Rs. 16,77,970/-. The case of the assesse is that since the return of income of assessee is at Rs. 16,77,970/- and in terms of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra) the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order lies with the DCIT and not with the ITO. The relevant extract of the said Instructions are reproduced herein below: Printed from counselvise.com 4 “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-I)], 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/ASSESSEE COMPANY 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 limit needs to be revised to remove the above mentioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also consider 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 ACs/DCs 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, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in suppression of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1.4.2011.” 6. This issue is no res integra and covered by the following decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Delhi Tribunal. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI in similar facts Printed from counselvise.com 5 after referring to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra) had held that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. If, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab initio. “Ashok Devichand Jain, vs. UOI and others in Writ Petition No. 3489 of 2019 decided on 08.03.2022 by Hon’ble Bombay High Court; and “Vipul Mittal vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2850/Del/2019 for AY 2014- 15 decided on 15.01.2025 (ITAT Delhi). 7. Further it is noted that this issue in dispute is fully covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal’s in the case of Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 8472/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) dated 4.7.2025, wherein, it has been held as under:- “6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration before us at this stage is: Whether the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the case of assessee in light of Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra)? The CBDT vide aforesaid instructions has specified monetary limits for passing the assessment orders in the case of various assessees. The relevant extract of the said instructions is reproduced herein below:- Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahemedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune.” 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 Printed from counselvise.com 6 7. The case of the assessee is that since in the return of income the assessee has declared loss of Rs.10,97,461/-, the ITO had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the case of assessee, whereas the assessment order has been passed by the DCIT. When the ld. DR was confronted with the aforesaid instructions he sought time to ascertain the facts and also to place on record a copy of the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act, whereby the jurisdiction of the AO was changed from ITO to DCIT. As prayed for by the ld. DR time was granted to furnish copy of the order passed u/s.127 of the Act, if any. On the next date of hearing the ld. DR expressed his inability to furnish order u/s. 127 of the Act. In the absence of any order u/s. 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction from ITO to DCIT, we hold that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the DCIT is without jurisdiction. 8. We further observe that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 (at page 100 of the paper book) was issued by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. In light of aforesaid CBDT Instructions even the Officer issuing said notice was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI (supra) in similar facts after referring to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011(supra) had held that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. If, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab initio. 9. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipul Mittal vs DCIT (supra). In light of facts of the case and documents on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 8. In view of above factual matrix and respectfully following the above precedents, we quash the assessment and allow the additional ground raised by the assessee. 9. Since, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue, the remaining grounds have become academic, hence, need not be adjudicated. Printed from counselvise.com 7 10. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnaggar Date: 23-2-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches Printed from counselvise.com "