IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Om Prakash Bansal (HUF), vs. ACIT, Circle 46(1), 3990, F/F, Naya Bazar, New Delhi.

Delhi – 110 006.

(PAN : AABHO0485L)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shir Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Order : 24.10.2025

O R D E R

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)) dated 19.04.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice application for admission of additional grounds of appeal wherein following additional grounds of appeal are raised :-

“1. The assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the appellant has declared returned income exceeding Rs.20,00,000/- and, therefore, jurisdiction over appellant lies with Circle not with ITO, Ward 47(1), Delhi as per CBDT Circular No.1/2011 F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I) dt. 03.01.2011 and hence the assessment initiated vide notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act by the AO i.e. ITO is invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and, the assessment order passed by AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 46(1), New Delhi need to be quashed as the order is passed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) by the authority having jurisdiction over the appellant.”

By relying on the decision of NTPC, Limited vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC), ld. AR prayed that the issue raised by the assessee is legal issue which can be raised at any stage of the appellate proceedings.

3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the additional grounds and raised the same at this stage without raising the same before the lower authorities.

4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record by both the parties. We observe that the issues raised by the assessee in additional grounds go to the root of the matter challenging the jurisdictional issue. In the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited (supra), we are inclined to admit the additional grounds and take up the same for adjudication herein below.

5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR contested only the legal issues raised in the additional grounds. He submitted that the proceedings u/s 143(2) dated 21.09.2018 was initiated by ITO, Ward 47(1), New Delhi i.e. JAO who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. He further submitted that as per last ITR available for AY 2018-19 filed on 25.08.2018, the returned income of assessee is Rs.20,34,480/- and even considering the ITR for the year under consideration dated 08.09.2017 also, the returned income was Rs.30,71,730/-. Therefore, the jurisdiction over the assessee was with Circle and not with above Ward Officer. Since returned income of assessee exceeds the income of Rs.20 lakhs, the jurisdiction on the assessee lies with Circle, the above limit of income for non-corporate charge with Circle is fixed as per CBDT Instruction no. 01/2011 and the jurisdiction over the case lied with Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax since the income declared was above Rs.20 Lakhs. He referred to the said CBDT Instruction no. 01/2011 which is reproduced as under: -

“Order-Instruction - Income Tax References have been received by the Board from the large number of taxpayers especially from the mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners / Assistant Commissioners and ITOs is causing hardship to the taxpayers.

INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)]

DATED 31-1-2011

References have been received by the Board from a large number of

taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary