AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, 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/250/2025-26/1082735929(1), dated 18.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee first of all canvasses its legal ground challenging validity of the learned Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) assessment dated 30.12.2017 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Learned DCIT, Circle -8(1), New Delhi, appears to have finalized the same in the assessee’s case.
Learned counsel’s first and foremost argument in this factual backdrop is that the assessee had returned loss of Rs. 8,93,855/-; and, therefore, going by the CBDT’s landmark circular no. 2/2011, the same could not be put to scrutiny by the above Assessing Officer in its case. We notice in this factual backdrop that the assessee has placed on record the CBDT’s landmark circular/instruction no. 1/2011 specifying the jurisdiction of ITO’s upto corporate returns declaring Rs.30 lakhs income in metro cities which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Faced with this situation, we hereby quote Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India [(2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom) to conclude that the learned DCIT herein has erred in law and on facts in assessing the assessee in violation of the CBDT’s aforesaid instruction and quash his impugned assessment in very terms. All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.