IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 379/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Mahavir Pukhraj Jain Vs. DCIT, Circle – 42(1)(1)

Flat No. 603/B, Manan Kautilya Bhawan, Apartment, New Link Road, Aenue -3, Near Videsh Dahisar East, Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, BKC

400068. Bandra (E) – 400051 PAN/GIR No. ADEPJ8540R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Rajesh Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 10.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee pressed Ground No. 2 of appeal, as the same is legal in question, wherein the jurisdiction for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been challenged. In our view since this ground is purely legal in question and goes to the roots of the case therefore we have also decided to take up this ground firstly.

3. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the jurisdiction of ITO in recording the ‘reasons for reopening’ u/s 147 of the Act and ‘issuing notice’ u/s 148 of the Act was challenged.

4. In this regard Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the ITO has erred in recording the reasons for reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act and also erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 as the ITO did not have valid jurisdiction over the assessee’s case as per CBDT circular No. 1/2011.

5. However on the contrary Ld. DR while relying upon the orders passed by the AO relied upon the provisions of Sec. 124(3) of the Act and submitted that at this stage assessee cannot be allowed to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO while passing the order of assessment.

6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that as per the facts of the present case, ITO recorded reasons for reopening u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2016. However, the jurisdiction in the assessee’s case, as per CBDT instruction No. 01/2011, lay with the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax since the income declared was above Rs. 20 Lakhs. Since the assessee had filed the return of income for Rs. 29,57,760/- on 28.09.2013. The CBDT Instruction No.

01/2011, which are reproduced as under:

Order-Instruction Income Tax References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under:

	Income declared (Mofussil area)		Income Declared (Metro cities)
	ITOs	ACs/DCs	ITOs	ACs/DCs
Corporate Return	Upto to 20 lacs	Above Rs. 20 lacs	Upto 30 lacs	Above 30 lacs
Non-corporate return	Upto 15 lacs	Above Rs. 15 lacs	Upto Rs. 20 lacs	Above Rs. 20 lacs

Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document