Vertex Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Com-missioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi dated 30.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23. Alt-hough the assessee had raised sixteen grounds, only Ground No. 3, challenging the validity of the reas-sessment proceedings, was argued. The assessee contended that the satisfaction note and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 and had been issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted the assessee’s submission that under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, in metro cities corporate returns involving income above Rs. 30 lakhs were required to be handled by an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. However, in the present case, the notice under Section 148 dated 27.03.2024 had been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1), Delhi. The Revenue did not dispute this factual position.
The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in M/s. Orchids Diamond Tools (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, where it had held that assessments framed by an Income Tax Officer despite the pecuni-ary jurisdiction lying with an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 were without jurisdiction. That decision had also relied upon Vipul Mittal vs. DCIT, YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, and the decision in Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI, holding that a notice issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction is invalid and renders the subsequent assessment void. The Tribunal further noted that similar views had been expressed in Monarch & Quershi Builders vs. ACIT and Sapna Rastogi vs. ITO.
