Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Quashes Assessment as ITO Lacked Pecuniary Jurisdiction Under CBDT Instruction

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 7526
Case Name
Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2012-13
Advertisement

Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur, considered an appeal arising from an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13. Apart from challenging various additions relating to long-term capital gains, deduction under Section 54F, house property income, cost of acquisition, stamp duty, and ownership share, the assessee raised an additional legal ground questioning the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(2), Bhilai, to complete the assessment. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that it involved a pure question of law requiring no further investigation of facts.

The assessee had filed a return declaring income of ₹19,07,440. The scrutiny proceedings were initially commenced by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Dy. CIT), Circle-1, Bhilai, who issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). However, the final assessment under Section 143(3) was completed by the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. The assessee contended that, in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31 January 2011, the ITO lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the assessee was a non-corporate taxpayer located in a mofussil area with returned income exceeding ₹15 lakh. According to the Instruction, such cases were required to be handled by Assistant Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners.
The Tribunal examined the CBDT Instruction and observed that it revised the pecuniary jurisdiction of assessing authorities with effect from 1 April 2011. Since the assessee had declared income above ₹15 lakh and belonged to a non-metro (mofussil) area, jurisdiction for the assessment vested with the AC/DC and not with the ITO. While the Tribunal found that the initial notice issued by the Dy. CIT was valid, it held that the subsequent assessment completed by the ITO was contrary to the binding CBDT Instruction. Consequently, the assessment was held to have been made without valid jurisdiction and was therefore invalid and non est.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,821

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.