IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5668/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] ITA No. 5669/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No. 5670/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 5671/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] ITA No. 5672/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17]

Smt. Lalita Agarwal Vs. The Income tax Officer Flat No. 70, Pocket-B, Ward - 69(3)

SFS Flats, Sukhdev Vihar New Delhi New Delhi PAN – ABZPA 9184 B ITA No. 5769/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 5770/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16]

The Income tax Officer Vs. Lalita Agarwal Ward - 69(3) Flat No. 70, Pocket-B, New Delhi SFS Flats, Sukhdev Vihar New Delhi PAN – ABZPA 9184 B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv Shri Saurav Tandon, Adv Department By : Shri Ankush Kalra, SR.DR Date of Hearing : 19.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2026

ORDER

PER BENCH:-

This is a bunch of six appeals – four by the assessee and two by the Revenue, directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 15.10.2024 for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17 by the assessee and A.Ys 2014-15 and 2015-16 by the Revenue respectively.

2. Since underlying facts pertain to same assessee and identical issues are involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

4. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out to the application filed u/r 11 of the ITAT Rules and prayed for admitting the additional legal ground.

5. Though the assessee and the Revenue have raised several grounds of appeal in all its appeals, but the challenge is to the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] for assumption of jurisdiction to frame order u/s 147 of the Act. The same being is legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we decided to adjudicate the same first.

6. The additional ground raised by the assessee reads as under:

"That without prejudice to any of the other grounds as per the appeal memo, the Assessment Order's as framed u/s 147/144 for AY 2012- 13 to AY 2016-17 are bad in law as void ab initio and the same only deserves to be quashed forthwith in the absence of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 as per the stipulated mandatory format in accordance with CBDT Instruction F No.225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23/06/2017, that this additional ground being squarely covered in assessee's favor by recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Anita Garg Vs ITO in ITA No. 4053/Del/24 dated 30/07/25 & other decisions on the subject on absolutely identical facts".

7. In support of the application for raising the additional ground, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee vide its existing ground Nos. 1 to 4 for A.Y 2012-13 and Ground Nos. 1 to 3 for A.Ys 2013-14 to 2016-17 is challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on part of the Assessing Officer in the absence of service of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the stipulated time frame rendering the assessment orders for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17 as void ab initio being liable to be quashed forthwith.

8. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee was provided with copies of notices u/s 143(2) for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17 only after framing of assessment orders of respective years pursuant to the order under Right to Information Act 2005 dated 10.01.2020 issued by the Assessing Officer which is placed at pages 36-37 of the Paper Book and copy of Application under RTI Act 2005 dated 06.01.2020 is placed at pages 31- 35 of the Paper Books submitted by the assessee with the Assessing Officer. 9. In this regard it was submitted that even the notices