2025 (7) TMI 376 - AT - Income Tax

AO jurisdiction to pass reopening proceedings - monetary limit for assuming jurisdiction in respect of return of income filed up to Rs. 30, 00, 000/- in the case of a corporate returns - ITO v/s DCIT - Whether assessment order has been passed by an Officer who has no jurisdiction over the assessee? The case of the assessee is that since in the return of income the assessee has declared loss of Rs. 10, 97, 461/- the ITO had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the case of assessee whereas the assessment order has been passed by the DCIT - HELD THAT - As prayed for by the ld. DR time was granted to furnish copy of the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act if any. On the next date of hearing the ld. DR expressed his inability to furnish order u/s. 127 of the Act. In the absence of any order u/s. 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction from ITO to DCIT we hold that the assessment order passed by the DCIT is without jurisdiction. We further observe that the notice u/s. 148 was issued by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. In light of aforesaid CBDT Instructions even the Officer issuing said notice was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI 2022 (3) TMI 1466 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in similar facts after referring to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011(supra) had held that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. If the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab initio. Similar view has been taken in the case of Vipul Mittal 2025 (1) TMI 1284 - ITAT DELHI - In light of facts of the case and documents on record we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction hence liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal is whether the Assessing Officer (AO) who passed the assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 had the jurisdiction to do so, particularly in light of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 which prescribes monetary limits for assuming jurisdiction over corporate returns. Specifically, the issues are:

• Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order when the assessee had declared a loss in the return of income, which was below the monetary threshold requiring the involvement of DCIT as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011.
• Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was valid and within jurisdiction.
• Whether the absence of any order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring jurisdiction from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the DCIT affects the validity of the assessment proceedings.
• Consequentially, whether the assessment order passed without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 lays down the monetary limits for assuming jurisdiction over assessment proceedings in corporate and non-corporate cases. For corporate returns filed in metro cities (including Delhi), the ITO has jurisdiction up to Rs. 30 lakhs of declared income, and the DCIT or ACIT has jurisdiction beyond that limit.

In this case, the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 10,97,461/- in the return of income for AY 2008-09, which is below the Rs. 30 lakhs threshold. Therefore, as per the CBDT Instruction, the ITO should have jurisdiction.

The Tribunal referred to precedents including:

• Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI, which held that notices and assessments beyond the prescribed jurisdiction are invalid.
• ITAT Delhi in Vipul Mittal vs. DCIT, which took a similar view regarding jurisdictional limits.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 and found it was passed by the DCIT, not the ITO. The Department was unable to produce any order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring jurisdiction from the ITO to the DCIT. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of such transfer, the DCIT had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order.

The Tribunal also noted that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, who also lacked jurisdiction under the CBDT Instruction. It relied on the Bombay High Court's ruling that a notice issued without jurisdiction is void ab initio, and any proceedings arising therefrom are invalid.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's return showing a loss of Rs. 10,97,461/-, the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 prescribing monetary limits, the absence of any order under section 127 transferring jurisdiction, and the notice under section 148 issued by an officer without jurisdiction.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the CBDT Instruction to the facts and concluded that the ITO had exclusive jurisdiction over the assessment. Since the DCIT passed the assessment order without any jurisdictional transfer, the order was invalid.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that since the case involved a survey operation covering the entire group, the assessments were clubbed and hence the DCIT passed the order. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument due to the absence of any formal jurisdictional transfer order and the clear CBDT Instruction governing jurisdiction.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the DCIT was without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. Similarly, the notice under section 148 issued by the Additional Commissioner was also without jurisdiction.

Validity of the assessment proceedings in absence of jurisdiction

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle that a notice issued without jurisdiction is void ab initio was emphasized, referencing the Bombay High Court decision. The law mandates that all assessment proceedings flow from a valid notice, and jurisdictional defects vitiate the entire proceeding.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 was invalid, all consequential proceedings, including the assessment order, were null and void.

Application of law to facts: The notice under section 148 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction, rendering the entire assessment invalid.

Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds without delving into the merits of the additions made by the AO.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"In the absence of any order u/s. 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction from ITO to DCIT, we hold that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the DCIT is without jurisdiction."

"If, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab initio."

"In light of facts of the case and documents on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be quashed."

Core principles established include:

• Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is strictly governed by CBDT Instructions prescribing monetary limits.
• Assessment orders passed by officers without jurisdiction are invalid and liable to be quashed.
• Notices issued by officers lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio, and proceedings arising therefrom are null.
• Absence of a valid order under section 127 transferring jurisdiction cannot be cured retrospectively.

Final determinations:

• The DCIT did not have jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the case of the assessee who declared a loss below the prescribed threshold.
• The notice under section 148 issued by the Additional Commissioner was without jurisdiction.
• The assessment order dated 15.03.2016 is quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
• The grounds challenging the additions on merits were not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on jurisdictional grounds.