BANSAL POLES PVT LTD,DELHI V. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

ITA 2326/DEL/2025

AI Insights

Bansal Poles P. Ltd. appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which arose from an assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), New Delhi. The primary contention was the improper issuance of the notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by an officer not authorized as per CBDT Instructions No. 01/2011 and No. 06/2011, which stipulate that only officers of the rank of Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner are authorized to issue such notices for corporate assessees with income exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, acknowledging the legal nature of the issue and its basis on admitted facts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848315 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Sapna Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Meerut-2024 (8) TMI 1517, YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Invalid notice
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1] ITA No.2326/Del/2025 Bansal Poles P. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2326/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bansal Poles Pvt. Ltd. Transport Complex, Main Rohtak Road, Tikri Kalan, West Delhi – 110041 Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2) Delhi \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AABCB7578A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.02.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Authority’ for short) in DIN & Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2] ITA No.2326/Del/2025 Bansal Poles P. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073699776(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Circle - 4(1) New Delhi, for AY: 2012-13. 2. On hearing both sides it came up that assessee has raised additional ground No. 5 which is as follows: “5(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment framed by the DCIT, Circle 4(1), New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Act, is bad in law as said DCIT did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and assessment has been completed on the basis of invalid notice issued by Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), New Delhi instead of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, rendering the entire assessment void ab initio and without jurisdiction. (ii) That the notice under section 143(2) issued by the Income Tax Officer is non-est and without jurisdiction as the same has been issued violating the CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011 read together with Instruction No. 06/2011 dated 08.04.2011 which mandates notice to be issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax as the income of the assessee exceeds the limit of Rs. 30 lacs.” 3. Though the ground was not raised before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ground is one which is legal and can be decided on the basis of admitted facts coming up from the impugned orders we admit the ground. 4. Now, admittedly the assessee’s return filed on 29.09.2018 copy of which is placed at page No. 1-5 of the paper book shows that the assessee Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3] ITA No.2326/Del/2025 Bansal Poles P. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) reported gross total income of Rs.94,43,228/- and the assessment has been completed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), New Delhi. At page 46 of the paper book assessee has provided copy of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act shown to be issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3) New Delhi. 5. The CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 r.w instruction No. 06/2011 dated 08.04.2011 copies of which have been provided in the case law compilation from Page No. 1 -3 show that in cases of corporate assessees in metro cities, if the return income exceeds Rs.30 lakhs the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) vests exclusively with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and no officer of the rank of Income Tax Officer. 6. Thus, in the case in hand the notice u/s 143(2) is issued for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 143(3) by issuing of notice u/s 143(2) by an incompetent tax authorities and the defect goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction leading the assessment proceeding void-ab-initio. 7. Although the ld. DR has sought invoking Section 292B of the Act, however, we are of the considered view that the irregularities is not in the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4] ITA No.2326/Del/2025 Bansal Poles P. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) mode of service of issuance of notice but the irregularity is of the nature which vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction and a consequential effect of which is that the assessment proceeding and the final assessment order are both liable to be considered void-ab-initio. A Coordinate Bench in the case of Sapna Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Meerut-2024 (8) TMI 1517 has taken into consideration similar facts and circumstances and the Bench (on which one of us i.e. judicial member was also in the coram) has taken into consideration the decision in YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and held as follows: “We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions. The assessee had filed a return of income on 07.07.2013 declaring the total income at Rs. 18,85,550/-. The assessee is an individual and, taking into consideration Instruction No. 01/2011 available at page 245 of the paper book, for non-corporate returns in case of non-metro cities (mofussil areas, the returns above Rs. 15 lakhs have to be assessed by the officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners. The report which is filed by the AO dated 26.06.2024 and reproduced above categorically mentions the fact that it is only on 15.05.2024, the PAN of the assessee has been transferred to ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut, from ITO, Ward 1(2) (5), Meerut, as per CBDT Instruction No. 05/2011 dated 31.01.2011 vide which jurisdiction of non corporate returns above Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ACIT/DCIT and upto Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ITO. 5.1 Now, admittedly, the notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021, copy of which is placed at page 7 of the paper book, is issued by ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut. Thus, certainly, this Revenue Officer did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as vested by the Board vide CBDT Instructions No. 01/2011 dated 31.03.2011.” 8. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances we are inclined to sustain additional ground No.5. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the impugned assessment is quashed. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5] ITA No.2326/Del/2025 Bansal Poles P. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) 9. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2026 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 25.03.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "