INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(1), DELHI, DELHI V. PICHESWAR GADDE, DELHI

ITA 2110/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Picheswar Gadde, who was a key promoter of M/s. Lingaya Group, facing scrutiny under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Income Tax Department reopened his assessment for AY 2012-13 based on a survey that allegedly uncovered unreported cash transactions related to property sales. The Assessing Officer made significant additions to Gadde's income, which were partly overturned by the CIT(A). Both the Department and Gadde appealed to the ITAT, which found procedural lapses in the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the Revenue's appeals while allowing Gadde's cross objections. In the parallel Wealth Tax case, similar issues of unreported cash transactions were contested, leading to a dismissal of the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841408 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Om Prakash Bansal (HUF) vs. ACIT, Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India, YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT Circle4(1), M/s. Kelvin International vs. DCIT, J Mitra and Bros. VS. ACIT, Monarch & Quershi Builders v. ACIT Circle 33(2), Sapna Rastogi vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961, Wealth Tax Act 1957
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANSHU G; NOT CONSIDERING STATEMENT OF RAKESH SEJPAL; EMPLOYEE OF; NOT CONSIDERING STATEMENT OF RAKESH SEJWAL; EMPLOYEE OF; NOT CONSIDERING
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2110/Del/2025 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) ITO, Ward 10(1), Delhi Room No. G-11A, Ground Floor, C.R. Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110002 vs. Picheswar Gadde, 16A, DLF Chhatarpur Farms, Delhi 110074 (PAN: AAJPG7365H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Picheswar Gadde, C/o Pranshu Goel, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi – 110002 AND C.O. No.224/Del/2025 IN ITA No. 2110/Del/2025 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Vs. ITO, Ward 10(1) CR Building, IP Esate, New Delhi – 110002 (PAN: AAJPG7365H) (APPELLANT) WTO, Ward 10(1) Room No. G-11A, Ground Floor, C.R. Building IP Estate, New Delhi And WTA No. 01/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Vs. (Respondent) Picheswar Gadde, 16A, DLF Chhatarpur Farms, Delhi 110074 (PAN: AAJPG7365H) Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) (Appellant) (Respondent) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pranshu G, C.A. and Shri Aditya Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 25.11.2025 Date of Order: 23.02.2026 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal ITA No. 2110/Del/2025 filed by the Department of Revenue and Cross Objection No. 224/Del/2025 filed by the Assessee are against the order dated 15.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Delhi – 31 {hereinafter referred as Ld. CIT (A)} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) arising out of Assessment Order dated 31.12.2019 of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 10(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. A.O.) u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act and WTA No. 01/Del/2025 filed by the revenue is against the order dated 23.01.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arising out of Assessment order dated 27.03.2015 of the Ld. AO u/s 16(3) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Appeals of revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee involve same facts and similar grounds and issue so they were heard together. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 31.07.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 23,23,780/- which was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act. After obtaining approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi for the reasons recorded the case was reopened. Shri Picheswar Gadde and his wife Smt. Sunita Gadde were key promoters of M/s. Lingaya’s Group involved in Business of Education, Mining and Real Estate. A survey operation u/s 133(A) of the Act was carried in the Lingaya Group on 30.06.2014. During the course of survey, various incriminating documents were seized from premises of Shri Picheswar Gadde and Smt. Sunita Gadde. Statement of Shri Picheswar Gadde was recorded mentioning that ‘while computing tax liability on sale of farm house at Village Dera Mandli, I and 15 DLF Chatarpur, New Delhi, I have taken the amount received by way of cheque as my total receipts for computing the tax. I have not considered cash receipts on account of sale of above mentioned properties for calculating tax liabilities’. On completion of proceedings, Ld. A.O. vide order dated 31.12.2019 made additions of Rs. 2,70,50,000/-, 2,72,50,000/-, 17,50,000/- and 12,00,000/-. 4. Against order dated 31.12.2019 of Ld. A.O., the Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 15.01.2025. 5. Similarly, Ld. AO vide order dated 27.03.2015 made additions of Rs.19,55,20,300/- u/s 16(3) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 6. Against order dated 27.03.2015 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2025. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 7. Being aggrieved, the Department of Revenue and the Assessee filed above captioned appeal and cross appeal respectively. ITA No. 2110/Del/2025 mentions following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,50,000/- made by AO on account of cash amount received against sale of property situated at 3, Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, Delhi? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering statement of Sh. Rakesh Sejpal, employee of assessee wherein he admitted that he received cash of Rs. 5.41 Crore in ten to fifteen installments from Sh. Vakamulla Chandrasekhar and his P.A. Sh. Pathak on behalf of M/s Maple Destinations and Dreambuild Pvt. Ltd.? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made by AO on account of cash amount paid by assessee to Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd. against purchase of property situated at DLF Farm, Village Chhatarpur, Delhi? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering the document impounded during survey containing details of cash payments made by assessee alongwith his spouse for purchase of property from Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd.? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of assessee with regard to cash amount received from Pawan Goyal whereas the addition was made for unexplained cash given to Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 8. Cross Objection 224/Del/2025 in ITA No. 2110/Del/2025 contains following cross objections:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued by the Ld. AO under Section 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio; 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, there is no independent application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO while recording the 'reasons to believe for reopening the completed assessment proceedings; Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no proper satisfaction of Ld. Pr. CIT was recorded in terms of the provisions of Section 151 of the Act and thus, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed under Section 148 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law, illegal and void ab initio, being issued without any DIN number; All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, thus may be granted.” 9. WTA No.01/Del/2025 mentions following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,50,000/- made by AO on account of cash amount received against sale of property situated at 3, Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, Delhi which is covered under the term asset for the purpose of charging wealth tax? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering statement of Sh. Rakesh Sejwal, employee of assessee wherein he admitted that he received cash of Rs. 5.41 Crore in ten to fifteen installments from Sh. Vakamulla Chandrasekhar and his P.A. Sh. Pathak on behalf of M/s Maple Destinations and Dreambuild Pvt. Ltd.? This statement proves the availability of cash with the assessee and cash amount is covered under the term Assets in the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,44,50,000/- made by AO on account of cash amount paid by assessee to Sanjay Jain, Rakesh Jain and family members against purchase of DLF Farm house and the facts of cash payments were established from the incriminating material impounded during survey operation carried out in the case of Lingaya's Society? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,44,50,000/- by stating that deal was cancelled between the assessee and Jain family members whereas the addition was made on account of cash payment and in event of cancellation of deal, the cash amount had been received back to the assessee? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by holding that cash payments made by assessee out of undisclosed cash does not cover under the term Assets as per the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 10. Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 2,70,50,000/- made by A.O. on account of cash amount received against sale of property 3 Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, Delhi. Ld. CIT (A) granted relief to assessee by not considering statement of Shri R.K. Sejpal employee of assessee wherein he admitted receipt of cash of Rs. 5.41 crore in ten to fifteen instalments from Shri VakamulaChandershekhar and his P.A. Shri Pathak on behalf of M/s. Maple Destinations and Dreambuild Pvt. Ltd. Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made by Ld. A.O. on account of cash paid by assessee Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd. Against purchase of property situated at DLF Farm, Village Chhatarpur, Delhi. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering documents impounded during survey containing details of cash payment made byassessee along with his wife for purchase of property from Nisha Jain and Arora Farms Pvt. Ltd. Wrong reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of assessee with regard to cash amount received from Pawan Goyal whereas the addition was made for unexplained cash given to Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. 11. Ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the addition of Rs.1,44,50,000/- was made by AO on account of cash amount paid by assessee to Sanjay Jain, Rakesh Jain and family members against purchase of DLF farm house and the facts of cash payments were established from the incriminating material impounded during survey operation. The assessee had made payments from undisclosed cash. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 12. Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee submitted that assessee had filed ITR declaring total income Rs. 23,23,780/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. On basis of survey proceedings, the case was reopened by A.O. having territorial jurisdictions over assessee. The pecuniary limit fixed for distribution between the officers showed that the Ld. A.O. lacked jurisdiction while issuing reopening notice. Hon’ble ITAT in order dated 24.10.2025 in ITA No. 2984/Del/2024, titled as Om Prakash Bansal (HUF) vs. ACIT decided in favour of the assessee. 13. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that ld. AO had made addition without any evidence that assessee purchased property at Vijaywada. 14. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 15.01.2025 deleted additions of Rs. 2,70,50,000/-, 2,72,50,000/-, 16,00,000/- and 12,00,000/- for lack of documentary evidence and upheld addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by Ld. A.O. vide Order dated 31.12.2019 u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act was in pursuance to notice dated 30.03.2019. Assessee had challenged issuance of notice on the ground that Ld. A.O. lacked jurisdiction of Assessment Proceedings because of pecuniary limit. 15. A coordinate Bench of ITAT in order dated 24.10.2025 in ITA No. 2984/Del/2024, titled as ‘Om Prakash Bansal (HUF) vs. ACIT’ in para no. 4 to 14 held as under:- 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record by both the parties. We observe that the issues raised by the assessee in additional grounds go to the root of the matter challenging the jurisdictional issue. In the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited (supra), we are inclined to admit the additional grounds and take up the same for adjudication herein below. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR contested only the legal issues raised in the additional grounds. He submitted that the proceedings u/s 143(2) dated 21.09.2018 was initiated by ITO, Ward 47(1), New Delhi i.e. JAO who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. He further submitted that as per last ITR available for AY 2018-19 filed on 25.08.2018, the returned income of assessee is Rs.20,34,480/- and even considering the ITR for the year under consideration dated 08.09.2017 also, the returned income was Rs.30,71,730/-. Therefore, the jurisdiction over the assessee was with Circle and not with above Ward Officer. Since returned income of assessee exceeds the income of Rs.20 lakhs, the jurisdiction on the assessee lies with Circle, the above limit of income for non-corporate charge with Circle is fixed as per CBDT Instruction no. 01/2011 and the jurisdiction over the case lied with Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax since the income declared was above Rs.20 Lakhs. He referred to the said CBDT Instruction no. 01/2011 which is reproduced as under: - “Order-Instruction - Income Tax References have been received by the Board from the large number of taxpayers especially from the mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners / Assistant Commissioners and ITOs is causing hardship to the taxpayers. 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/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 ares) 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 R.15 lacs Above Rs.15 lacs Upto Rs.20 lacs Above Rs.20 lac Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 9 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from1-4-2011.” 6. He submitted that however, in the present case, notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward 47(1) on 21.09.2018, who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee and thus, notice u/s 143(2) issued is without jurisdiction. He submitted that the fact that ITO did not have jurisdiction is evident from the fact that assessment has been completed by ACIT, Circle – 46(1), Delhi, thus in the absence of valid notice u/s 143(2) by the jurisdictional AO, the assessment order is liable to be quashed and the issue is no more res integra. In this regard, he relied on the case of Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India (452 ITR 43) (Bom) wherein it was held as under: - “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, 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 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. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 10 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 7. Consequently the order dated 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner’s objection is also quashed and set aside.” 7. Further, he submitted that the reassessment proceedings in the present case are to be treated as being initiated by non-jurisdictional assessing officer and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings and consequent assessment order both needs be quashed. In this regard, further he relied on the cases of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT Circle–4(1) ITA No. 1020/DEL/2019 dated 29.04.2024, M/s. Kelvin International vs. DCIT in ITA No.5363/Del/2017 dated 22.12.2013 and J Mitra and Bros. VS. ACIT in ITA No.3643/Del/2023 dated 10.04.2024, where similar view was considered and decided that no jurisdiction over the assessee and issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the non-jurisdictional officer is bad in law. 8. Ld. AR submitted that in view of the above decisions, it is evident that notice u/s 143(2) issued in this case is without jurisdiction and, therefore the said notice along with the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice is liable to be quashed. 9. Coming to the second objection regarding issue of completion of assessment by non- jurisdictional authority, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the assessee on the basis of CBDT jurisdictional list w.e.f. 15.11.2014 falls in Circle 47(1), Delhi based on the territorial jurisdictional of Naya Bazar, Delhi and submitted copy of instructions on record. He further submitted that the assessment has been completed by Circle 46(1), Delhi who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. H submitted that it is therefore a case of exercise of jurisdiction for making assessment by the authority who had no jurisdiction over the assessee as per section 2(7A) r.w.s. 120(3) of the Act. He submitted that since that be the case, such assessment is invalid in law in view of the decisions cited herein above. Further he relied on various judgments in his written submissions. Thus, in view of the above, he prayed that the assessment order passed is without jurisdiction and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee be allowed. 10. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in additional ground should have challenged the same within one month before the Assessing Officer after receiving the notice. This issue was never raised before the first appellate authority also. He submitted that income has to be assessed and income alone cannot be considered for jurisdiction. He relied on section 124 (3) of the Act as per which assessee has to file objections within two months. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 11 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) in the case of Abhishek Jain vs. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi). He objected to the submissions of the ld. AR and heavily relied on the findings of the authorities below. 11. In the rejoinder, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that section 124 applies with the territorial jurisdiction and it is not applicable to pecuniary jurisdiction. The relevant section applicable is section 120 and he reiterated that the action of the Assessing Officer is illegal and in this regard, he relied on the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, which is placed on record. 12. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that assessee has filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.30,71,730/-. As per the CBDT Instruction No.01/2011, the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case lies only with Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax as the income declared by the assessee is above Rs.20 lakhs falls under the category of non-corporate returns. It is brought to our notice that notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the ITO, Ward 47 (1) on 21.09.2018, who do not have jurisdiction over the assessee in the case considering the fact that the return of income declared by the assessee is over and above Rs.20 lakhs. The assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle – 46(1), Delhi u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, we observe 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. Ld. DR objected to the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the present jurisdictional issue raised 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 observe 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. 5. We find that assessee’s returned income for the A.Y. 2015- 16 was Rs. 37,78,510/- hence, the jurisdiction of the assessee should lie with ACIT/DCIT since the returned income had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-, in view of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the said Instruction No.1/2011 [F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011 is hereby reproduced:- “SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961-INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 12 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1)), 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/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 ares) 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 R.15 lacs Above Rs.15 lacs Upto Rs.20 lacs Above Rs.20 lac 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 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 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 about territorial jurisdiction, whereas the issue involved here is pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the provisions of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 13 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) section 124(3) of the Act could be taken shelter by the Revenue only when legal valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the Revenue. In the instant case, notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act on 12.04.2016 by ITO is not legal as he did not possess jurisdiction over the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 in as much as the returned income for A.Y. 2015- 16 had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra by the decision 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, 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 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.” Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 14 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 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 quashed in the instant case as the initial scrutiny notice issued under section 143(3) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 by ITO was without jurisdiction as he did not possess jurisdiction over the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16. Consequently, assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act is hereby quashed as void ab initio. The additional ground no.2 is hereby allowed.” 13. Similar view was expressed by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Monarch & Quershi Builders v. ACIT Circle – 33(2) ITA No. 2026/MUM/2023 and by the coordinate Bench in the case of Sapna Rastogi vs. ITO – ITA No. 617/DEL/2024. 14. Further the Revenue has not brought on record an order u/s 127 of the Act passed in order to transfer the case to DCIT, Circle …………, New Delhi except making the submissions that assessee should file the objection within one month u/s 124(3) of the Act. Since the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is the basis of initiation of the assessment u/s 143(3) and the jurisdictional officer should have issued the notice and also completed the assessment. The present Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without following the due process of law and we, respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate Bench and ITAT Mumbai, are inclined to hold that the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) was not issued by the DCIT before completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and that there is an unwarranted defect in this case which is not curable. Accordingly, the assessment passed in the given case is quashed and accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 16. In view of above material facts by following the judicial precedents, it is held that the Ld. A.O. lacked jurisdiction of A.O. while issuing impugned notice resultantly, the assessment order being illegal is set aside. The grounds of appeal of Revenue are rejected and cross objections of assessee are accepted. 17. In WTA No. 01/Del/2025 revenue has challenged order dated 23.01.2025 of ld. CIT(A) through while the addition made by ld. AO to the taxable wealth was set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) held that ld. AO had failed to place on record evidence to substantiate the allegations that assessee owns property at Vijaywada since no sale deed was available and there was no evidence of payments. The grounds of appeal have not been substantiated by any evidence, therefore, the grounds of appeal of revenue being devoid of any merit are rejected. The appeal filed by the revenue WTA No. 01/Del/2025 is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 15 ITA 2110/Del/2025, WTA No. 01/Del/2025 CO 224/del/25 Picheswar Gadde (AY: 2012-13) 18. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.02.2026 Sd/- (S Rifaur Rahman) Sd/- (Vimal Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 23.02.2026 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 "