Harish Chand Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Notice by Wrong AO = Fatal: 143(2) by Non-Jurisdictional AO Vitiates Entire Assessment: Participation Doesn’t Cure Jurisdictional Defect
Delhi ITAT ‘C’ Bench in Harish Chand Gupta vs ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi (ITA No.671/Del/2025, AY 2017-18, order dated 23-12-2025) quashed the entire assessment holding that notice u/s 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional AO is a nullity, and the defect is not curable u/s 292BB.
Assessee’s return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was selected for scrutiny on multiple parameters including demonetisation cash deposits, import data mismatch and customs duty variance. However, the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-09-2018 was issued by ITO, Ward-66(1), Delhi, who admittedly had no territorial or functional jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessment was later completed ex-parte u/s 144 by ITO, Ward-34(2)—the jurisdictional AO—without issuing a fresh valid notice u/s 143(2).
ITAT held that jurisdiction must exist at the stage of issuance of notice, and an assessment founded on a jurisdictionally invalid notice is void ab initio. The Tribunal reiterated that section 292BB cannot cure non-issuance of a valid notice; it only cures defects in service, not absence of jurisdiction. Mere participation or acquiescence by the assessee does not confer jurisdiction on an AO who otherwise lacks it.
Relying on consistent precedents including Vedanta Resources, Louis Dreyfus, Nirmal Gupta and its own decision in Sanjay Kumar Singhal, ITAT allowed the jurisdictional ground and quashed the assessment, leaving other grounds open.
143(2) must be issued by the correct AO. A notice by a wrong officer strikes at the root of jurisdiction and renders the entire assessment void, notwithstanding participation by the assessee
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
