AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
These appeals and Cross Objections are preferred by the revenue and assessee against the order dated 30.10.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by NFAC, Delhi for AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15.
On hearing both sides we find that additions were made u/s 69A in the two assessment orders on account of alleged unsecured loans and adhoc disallowance of travelling and telephone expenses which have been deleted by ld. CIT(A) for which department is in appeal and assesse has filed cross objections wherein assesse alleges that the initiation of proceedings and consequential assessment orders dated 27.03.2022 u/s 147/144/144B of the Act are null and void as the same are in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.03.2011 and in this context our attention was drawn to page No. 3-7 of the paper book for AY:2013l-14 where assesse has shown filing return of income of Rs.39,86,470/- and for AY: 2014-15 of Rs.42,17,600/-. The contention of ld. Counsel is that by the said circular the CBDT has vested jurisdiction for assessment in case of non-corporate assesse in cases of income reporting of Rs.20,00,000/- and more with Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, in the metropolitan cities to which assesse also belongs and it was submitted that as the jurisdiction in the case of assesse stands assumed while issuance of a notice by ITO, Ward 52 (1) Delhi, and accordingly, the assessment orders have been passed by the same officer, the assumption of jurisdiction is vitiated.
This is rebutted by the ld. DR by submitting that as in the return filed the same is shown to be filed with the ITO, W-52(1) and jurisdiction at the time of reopening vested with ITO, W-52(1) Delhi, so there is no irregularity and otherwise the same is curable.
Now, based on the aforesaid admitted facts we find that the judicial precedent relied by ld. Counsel for the assesse lay down that jurisdictional notice u/s 148 should be issued only by AO with whom the jurisdiction has been vested by Board and the defect is not curable. Reliance in this regard placed in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Devi Chand Vs. UOI (2023) 151 Taxmann.com 70 (Bombay). Further, following the same legal premises the Coordinate Benches decisions in 452 ITR 43 Ashok Devi Chand Jain vs. UOI, 452 ITR 43 dated 22.03.2022; M/s Kevin International Vs. DCIT vide 5363/Del/2017 dated 22.12.2023; Vipul Mittal Vs. DCIT vide ITA No 2850/Del/2019 dated 15.01.2025; Suman Devi Vs. ITO, Vide ITA No. 2817/Del/2024 dated 25.04.2025; Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA No. 8472/Del/2019 dated 04.07.2025; Arjun Rishi Vs. ITO, vide ITA No. 3020/Del/2023 dated 09.07.2025; Balraj Sharma Vs. ITO vide ITA No. 03.03.2026; Kshiti Sachdeva Prop. Alert International Vs. ITO, vide ITA No. 6133/Del/2025 dated 08.04.2026; and Harpal Singh Vs. ITO, vide ITA No. 7392/Del/2025 dated 10.08.2026 have held that assumption of jurisdiction and violation of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction and also consequential assessment order.
In the light of aforesaid we are inclined to sustain the ground No. 1 of the cross objection of the assesse and the same are allowed and the impugned assessment order stand quashed. As a consequential effect, the appeals of the department deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, ordered.