Bullionline LLP Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi allowed all three appeals of Bullionline LLP for AY 2017-18, holding that the entire proceedings were vitiated at the threshold due to lack of jurisdiction at the stage of issuing notice u/s 143(2).
The Tribunal found that the initial notice u/s 143(2) dated 08-08-2018 was issued by ITO Ward 6(1), Chandigarh, who never had territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee, whose registered office and return were at Delhi. The assessee objected within time, yet no transfer order u/s 127 was ever passed. Only the records were transferred, which cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.
Since the jurisdictional AO (ACIT, Delhi) never issued a valid notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit, the entire assessment u/s 143(3) dated 27-12-2019 was held non-est and void ab initio, following Delhi HC in Sunworld Infrastructure.
Once the foundation assessment itself was quashed, the Tribunal held that:
– PCIT’s revision u/s 263 has no legs to stand on, and
– the consequential order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 also automatically collapses.
All merits were rendered academic.
Result:
– Original assessment u/s 143(3): quashed
– PCIT order u/s 263: quashed
– Consequential order giving effect to 263: quashed
– All three appeals allowed in full
Key takeaway: Jurisdiction is everything—once the first 143(2) is void, the entire assessment chain including 263 cannot survive.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The above captioned three separate appeals by the same assessee are preferred against separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi dated 26.03.2022, 12.06.2025 and 07.06.2025 each pertaining to A.Y 2017-18, respectively.
