Dheeraj Juneja & Sons, HUF vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ghaziabad

PER MADHUMITA ROYA, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.12.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 25/03/2025 passed by ITO, Ward 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2020-21.

The case of the assessee is this that the notices both under Section 148 and 143(3) of the Act were issued undated. In this regard, the Ld. AR, Shri Lalit Mohan has drawn our attention to page 2 of the paper book wherefrom it reflects that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2024 from the office of the ACIT Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad does not bear any signature. The notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued from the office of Assessment Unit, IT department appearing at pages 8 to 9 of the book filed before us also not bearing any signature of the order issuing authority. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, both the notices issued by the department is having no legal sanction and therefore, are liable to be quashed as the case made out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.

Apart from that the Ld. AR has further relied upon the CBDT Instruction bearing Number 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 (appearing at page 5 of a judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench) wherein in the case of non-corporate assessee having return filed below Rs.15 lakhs notice is required to be issued from the office of the ITO as instructed and not the ACIT as the present case since the assessee’s returned income is only 8,61,830./-. Therefore, even on jurisdictional ground the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is also found to be invalid and thus, liable to be quashed as the case made out by the Ld. AR. In this regard he has relied upon very many judgements passed by different judicial forums, including the judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Venetian LDF Projects LLP, vs. ACIT, in ITA No.3533/Del/2019, order dated 01.05.2025 appearing from page 1 to 8 of the paper book filed before us. The above Notification dated 31.01.2011 has been reproduced in the said judgement while dealing with identical issue as follows:

Further, following judgements have also been relied upon:-

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The case of the assessee is that the notices both under Section 148 and 143(3) of the Act were issued undated, copies whereof annexed to the paper book evidencing the same. Thus, the same do not have any legal sanctity. The judgments relied upon have been duly considered wherein the identical issues have been decided in favour of the assessee and considering the entire aspect of the matter, the impugned undated notices issued under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Act are found to be invalid, having no legal foundation, void ab initio and thus, the consequential assumption of jurisdiction is also held invalid.

We have further considered the jurisdictional aspect of the matter and found that the notice ought to have been issued by the ITO’s office and not from the office of the ACIT as the return of income filed by the assessee is only Rs.8,61,830/-, i.e., below Rs.15 lakhs in view of the CBDT Circular No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 which issue has already found to have been considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Venetian LDF Projects LLP (supra) and held the issue in favour of the assessee. Thus, on this count also the assessment is found to have jurisdictional error and, thus, quashed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.