IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Alaka Mars Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 80-81, Block C, Pocket 7, Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi PAN: AAUCA6282D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2026

ORDER

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order dated 07.08.2025 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-29 10135/2020-21, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. Delay of 17 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3. It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself set into motion by the learned ACIT, Circle-1, Delhi vide issuance of section 148 notice on 31st March, 2024. This is for the precise reason that the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to page 45 in the case records that it had declared income amounting to Rs.4,75,478/-; which going by the CBDT’s landmark circular no. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2021, could only have been dealt with by Income Tax Officer than the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner; as the case may be.

4. Faced with this situation, it is further noticed that this tribunal’s recent decision in Durga Manikanta Traders v. ITO, December 12, 2022 [2025] 170 taxmann.com 338 (Raipur – Trib.) has already decided the legal issue against the department and in assessee’s favour, reading as under:

12. “We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.

13. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had, inter alia, revised the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs. For the sake of clarity, we deem it fit to cull out the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011,Page 1 of APB, which reads as under:

“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 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 Income Declared (Mofussil areas) (Metro cities)

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 earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011.”

(emphasis supplied by us)

As stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, the CBDT vide its aforesaid Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had, inter alia, revised the earlier existing monetary limit for assigning the cases to ITOs/ACs/DCs w.e.f. 01.04.2011. On the basis of the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No