SANJAY VERMA AND SONS HUF,HARIDWAR V. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1(3)(1), HARIDWAR

ITA 189/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Sanjay Verma and Sons HUF against an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). The primary legal contention was the validity of the section 143(2) notice issued by the ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Haridwar, who allegedly lacked jurisdiction over the assessee's case due to the income threshold prescribed for ITOs in mofussil areas. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and relevant circulars, concluded that the ITO did not have the authority to issue the notice, leading to the quashing of the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833755 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KANWAL K. JUNEJA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No.189/DDN/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Sanjay Verma and Sons HUF, Hotel Bhaskar, Opp. Railway Station, Haridwar Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Haridwar PAN :AAOHS1624J (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079182513(1), dated 01.08.2025, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by Sh. Kanwal K. Juneja, CA Department by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.189/DDN/2025 2 | P a g e Heard both the parties. Case filed perused. 2. We notice at the outset from a perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant raises its first and foremost legal ground challenging legality of the impugned assessment/reassessment for want of a valid section 143(2) notice. 3. Learned departmental representative invites our attention to page 8 in the paper-book that the ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Haridwar had indeed issued section 143(2) notice to him which followed the impugned assessment dated 17.12.2018 framed by the DCIT herein. 4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments as going by the CBDT’s Circular No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 that the board itself prescribed for non-corporate returns in mofussil areas and the Income Tax Officer(s) “ITOs” had jurisdiction of dealing with income tax returns declared up to Rs.10 lakhs only. We reiterate that the assessee had disclosed income of Rs.48,07,250/-. That being the case, the ITO who had issued section 143(2) notice to the assessee lacked jurisdiction which renders the impugned assessment itself as not sustainable in law in very terms. Quashed in very terms. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.189/DDN/2025 3 | P a g e All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 6th February, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "