RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 291/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ramesh Kumar Gupta against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18, issued by the ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi. The primary contention was the improper transfer of jurisdiction among various Income Tax Officers (ITOs) without adhering to the procedural requirements under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the notices for assessment were sent to an old Chartered Accountant who did not participate in the proceedings, leading to an ex parte order under section 144. The Tribunal examined the legality of the jurisdiction transfer and the subsequent assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793107 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd vs ITO 466 ITR 26 (Del), Manoj Kumar Vs ACIT 79 ITR (TRIB) 158 (ITAT-DELHI), Pr CIT vs Vimal Gupta ITA 515/2016 (Del), VIPUL Mittal vs DCIT ITA No.2850/DEL/2019, Sanjay Kumar Singhal vs ACIT 2025 (5) TMI 282 (ITAT-DELHI), CIT vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxmann.com 213 (Bombay), Kanwar Singh Saini (2012) 4 SCC 307 (SC), Dr Hari Singh Chandel vs ITO ITA No.287/Rpr/2016 dated 17.10.2022, V.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., ITA No.79 of 2015 dated 01.03.2017 (All), CIT vs Ramesh D Patel 362 ITR 492 (Guj), Balaji Enterprise vs. ACIT (2021) 187 ITD 111 (Gau.), OSL Developers (P) Ltd. vs. TO, (2021) 211 TTJ (Kol) 621
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH GUPTA
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.291/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramesh Kumar Gupta, vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), 202, Bhagirthi Society, Delhi. Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : ADUPG6273G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Order : 22.09.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 18.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were initiated originally by ITO, Ward 39(4), Delhi by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.291/DEL/2025 (for short ‘the Act’) on 16.08.2018 along with notice u/s 142(1) dated 14.08.2019. The notices are placed on record in the form of paper book. Further he submitted that the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO Ward 36(4) and finally the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi who has issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.10.2019, 10,11,2019 and 16.12.2019 and finally passed the impugned assessment order on 21.12.2019. He further submitted that all the abovesaid notices were sent to the email id of the old Chartered Accountant who failed to participate in the assessment proceedings and due to this, the impugned assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. He further brought to our notice page 1 of the assessment order at para 2 wherein the AO has clearly brought on record that jurisdiction notices u/s 143(2) were issued by ITO, Ward 39(4) and subsequently the case was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(4) and finally ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi and he has mentioned that the case was assigned through an order dated 23.10.2019 by JCIT, Range 36 u/s 120(5) of the Act. He submitted that how the case of the assessee was transferred from Ward 39(4) to 36(4) without there being any order u/s 127(1) of the Act, in absence of the valid order u/s 127, the authority to whom the case was transferred i.e. ITO, Ward 36(4), Delhi does not acquire valid jurisdiction. To support the above proposition, he relied on the decision of Raj Sheela Growth Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.291/DEL/2025 Fund (P) Ltd vs ITO 466 ITR 26 (Del) wherein it is held that where the case was transferred from one AO having jurisdiction over the assessee to another AO who otherwise did not have jurisdiction in terms of the direction of the Board under Section 120 and 124 of the Act, then transfer order under Section 127 is mandatory, without which the jurisdiction of the AO cannot be conferred to pass any assessment order. Further, reliance is placed in the decisions of Manoj Kumar Vs ACIT 79 ITR (TRIB) 158 (ITAT-DELHI), Pr CIT vs Vimal Gupta ITA 515/2016 (Del), VIPUL Mittal vs DCIT ITA No.2850/DEL/2019 and Sanjay Kumar Singhal vs ACIT 2025 (5) TMI 282 (ITAT-DELHI). 3. Further ld. AR submitted that jurisdiction was transferred from Ward 36(4) to Ward 36(6), Delhi and AO has recorded that the transfer of case is on the basis of JCIT order u/s 120(5) of the Act. He submitted that the order passed by JCIT u/s 120(5) is no substitute to the order u/s 127 of the Act as the jurisdiction of the case is only be transferred through order u/s 127 of the Act. Even though if transfer of jurisdiction is claimed through Notifications/Directions u/s 120 of the Act in view of the observations of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. (supra). It is a settled law the assessment order has to be passed by the only authority having jurisdiction over an assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.291/DEL/2025 Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxmann.com 213 (Bombay)) has held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer who otherwise was not Assessing Officer of the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini (2012) 4 SCC 307 (SC) in Para 13 has held that there can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the party nor by a superior court. On the possible defence by the Revenue on the restriction of raising objection within 30 days of receipt of notice as per provision of sec 124(3) also does not come into play as the assessee had not participated in the proceeding. The provision of section 124(3) are relevant where there is dispute on the jurisdiction of the authority issuing any notice but where the assessee is in receipt of notice from an authority not vested with jurisdiction over him either u/s 124(1)/127, or by any notification or circular of by CBDT instruction, no duty is cast on the assessee to call in question jurisdiction of the authority as per mandate of section 124(3) of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Raipur Bench in the Case of Dr Hari Singh Chandel vs ITO ITA No.287/Rpr/2016 dated 17.10.2022 (Para 19& 20 at pages 18-21) where following authorities were cited in support of the above view: Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.291/DEL/2025  V.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., ITA No.79 of 2015 dated 01.03.2017 (All)  CIT vs Ramesh D Patel 362 ITR 492 (Guj)  Balaji Enterprise vs. ACIT (2021) 187 ITD 111 (Gau.)  OSL Developers (P) Ltd. vs. TO, (2021) 211 TTJ (Kol) 621 4. Other grounds on merits, no submissions were made by the ld. AR of the assessee. We also restrict to adjudicate on the jurisdictional issue. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the assessment proceedings were initiated originally by ITO, Ward 39(4), Delhi and the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO Ward 36(4) and finally the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi. We observe from the assessment order that jurisdiction notices u/s 143(2) were issued by ITO, Ward 39(4) and subsequently the case was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(4) and finally ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi and AO has mentioned that the case was assigned through an order dated 23.10.2019 by JCIT, Range 36 u/s 120(5) of the Act. We observe that the case of the assessee was transferred from Ward 39(4) to 36(4) without there being any order u/s 127(1) of the Act and in absence of the valid order u/s 127, the authority to whom the case was Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.291/DEL/2025 transferred i.e. ITO, Ward 36(4), Delhi does not acquire valid jurisdiction. In this regard, we find force from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd (supra) wherein it is held that where the case was transferred from one AO having jurisdiction over the assessee to another AO who otherwise did not have jurisdiction in terms of the direction of the Board under Section 120 and 124 of the Act, then transfer order under Section 127 is mandatory, without which the jurisdiction of the AO cannot be conferred to pass any assessment order. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee relying on aforesaid decisions and relying on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd (supra), we are inclined to hold that valid jurisdiction was not acquired by the Assessing Officer in ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, hence the entire proceedings initiated are quashed and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of September, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 22.09.2025 TS Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.291/DEL/2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "