Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 v. Shri Harbans Lal

$~28 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 528/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -12,..... AppellantThrough :Mr. Arun Chatri, Advocate. versus SHRI HARBANS LAL Through : Nemo. ..... Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%25.07.2017 -CM APPL. No. 26009/2017 (Delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing this appealis condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA 528/2017 2. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘Act’) is directed against an order dated 27[th]December, 2016 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2458/Del/2011for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08. 3. The question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified inannulling the assessment order by invoking Section 124(3) of the Act or not. 4. The admitted fact is that the jurisdiction of the case was transferred fromITO Ward 19 (4), New Delhi to ACIT, Circle 19(1) New Delhi by orderunder Section 127 of the Act. The ITAT has rightly held that no jurisdictionwas vested with the ITO, Ward 19(4) and, hence, the notice issued by himunder Section 143(2) on 21[st]July, 2008 was invalid. The consequentassessment proceedings were held to be bad in law and assessment was,accordingly, annulled. 5. Once the notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act is found to have beenissued by an ITO who lacks the jurisdiction to do so, the inevitable result isthat the consequential assessment order would be invalid. No substantialquestion of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 25, 2017j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J