Jurisdictional Challenge in Nidhi Bansal vs ITO – ITA No. 6255/DEL/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

Case Overview: Nidhi Bansal vs ITO – ITA No. 6255/DEL/2019

Case Number: ITA 6255/DEL/2019

Appellant: Nidhi Bansal, Faridabad

Respondent: ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

Assessment Year: 2011-12

Order Type: Final Tribunal Order

Date of Order: 9th September 2021

Case Filed On: 23rd July 2019

Bench: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Introduction

The case of Nidhi Bansal vs ITO pertains to the assessment year 2011-12, where the appellant challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the addition made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appellant, Nidhi Bansal, filed an appeal against the order dated 22nd May 2019, passed by the CIT(A) – Faridabad, on various grounds, including the merits of the addition and the assumption of jurisdiction.

Background of the Case

Nidhi Bansal, the appellant, challenged the order of the CIT(A) on multiple grounds, particularly focusing on the jurisdictional aspects of the case. The primary contention was that the jurisdiction was assumed by the AO without recording valid reasons and without obtaining proper approval as required by law. The appellant also raised concerns about the lack of opportunity provided to present the case.

The CIT(A) had upheld the additions made by the AO, but the appellant disputed both the assumption of jurisdiction and the merits of the additions. As a result, the case was brought before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for further examination.

Proceedings at the ITAT

The case was heard by the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, presided over by SMT. DIVA SINGH, Judicial Member. The hearing was conducted via Webex on 16th August 2021, and the order was pronounced on 9th September 2021.

During the hearing, the appellant did not appear, and the appeal was heard ex-parte on merits. The Senior Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. R.K. Gupta, represented the respondent, ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad.

Jurisdictional Challenge

The primary issue raised by the appellant was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO. The appellant contended that the AO had assumed jurisdiction without recording valid reasons and without obtaining the necessary approvals as per the law. This challenge was presented in Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not provided a specific finding on the jurisdictional challenge raised by the appellant. Given the legal significance of this issue, the ITAT found it appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the jurisdictional issues.

ITAT’s Findings and Conclusion

After considering the submissions made by the Senior DR and reviewing the records, the ITAT concluded that the jurisdictional issues raised by the appellant were substantial and warranted a fresh examination by the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional challenge was a legal ground that could not be overlooked.

The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to first address the jurisdictional issues before proceeding to decide the merits of the case. The appellant was also directed to cooperate fully with the CIT(A) during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of Nidhi Bansal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanding the case back for a fresh examination of the jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal’s order was pronounced on 9th September 2021.

Final Judgment

The final judgment in the case of Nidhi Bansal vs ITO (ITA No. 6255/DEL/2019) highlights the importance of addressing jurisdictional challenges before proceeding to the merits of a case. The Tribunal’s decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination underscores the legal principle that jurisdictional issues must be resolved at the earliest stage.

The ITAT’s ruling in this case serves as a reminder of the procedural safeguards that must be observed in tax proceedings, ensuring that jurisdiction is properly established before any substantive decisions are made. The outcome of this case will depend on the CIT(A)’s examination of the jurisdictional grounds and the subsequent resolution of the merits of the case.

Bench: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Order Pronounced On: 9th September 2021

Result: The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the jurisdictional issues.

Jurisdictional Challenge in Nidhi Bansal vs ITO – ITA No. 6255/DEL/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12)