Om Prakash Bansal (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi quashes assessment – Notice u/s 143(2) by ITO invalid as income exceeded ₹20 lakhs; jurisdiction lay with ACIT/DCIT; ITAT Delhi holds notice u/s 143(2) by non-jurisdictional ITO invalid-
Assessee, Om Prakash Bansal (HUF), challenged the assessment framed u/s 143(3) on the ground that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dt. 31-01-2011. The return declared income of ₹30.71 lakh; hence, jurisdiction legally lay with ACIT/DCIT (Circle) & not ITO (Ward).
The notice initiating scrutiny had been issued by ITO, Ward-47(1) on 21-09-2018, whereas the assessment was ultimately completed by ACIT, Circle-46(1). Assessee argued that such notice was void ab initio & relied on NTPC Ltd v. CIT (229 ITR 383 SC), Ashok Devichand Jain v. UOI (452 ITR 43 Bom), YKM Holdings Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (ITA 1020/Del/2019), & Kelvin International v. DCIT (ITA 5363/Del/2017) to show that a notice by an officer without pecuniary jurisdiction vitiates the assessment.
Revenue contended that the objection was belated under s.124(3), but Tribunal held that s.124 governs territorial, not pecuniary, jurisdiction. Following YKM Holdings Pvt Ltd & Ashok Devichand Jain, it held that since the returned income exceeded ₹20 lakh, ITO lacked jurisdiction & the statutory notice u/s 143(2) forming the foundation of assessment was invalid & incurable.
