Sonia Singh Mann vs ITO, Ward 69(1)

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.02.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086075924(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed ITO, Ward 69(1) Delhi, for AY: 2018-19.

On hearing both sides we find that the issue involved is the challenge of reopening and the notice of reopening is allegedly issued by non-jurisdictional authority. Though ld. DR relied the impugned proceedings and submitted that objection is delayed, but we are of considered view that illegality in assumption of jurisdiction which makes order void ab initio, can be agitated at any stage.

In this regard, we find that at page 1 assesse has provided copy wherein PAN Number is quoted and the appeal is filed with the AO, Ward 66(4), Delhi, however, notice has been issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act by ITO, Ward-1, Shimla and the copy of same available at page No. 2 & 3 of the paper book makes it appears that this notice has been issued on the basis that in the absence of PAN & ITR the impugned transaction of cash payment was examined and found to be a case of escapement of income. At page No. 13 copy of reply in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is provided wherein assesse has asserted all these facts to the AO, ITO Ward 69(1), Delhi. Thus, very apparently assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of impugned notice dated 21.03.2022 is vitiated and the consequential proceedings also are liable to be quashed.

We thus, sustain the corresponding grounds no. 2.2, and the appeal is allowed. The impugned assessment order is quashed.