Summary
- The ITAT Delhi has quashed the assessment of Arjun Rishi for AY 2017-18, citing a lack of valid pecuniary jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.
- The Tribunal found that the scrutiny assessment was conducted without a proper notice under Section 143(2) and no order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127 was provided.
- This ruling follows precedents, including Vipul Mittal v. DCIT, emphasizing strict adherence to CBDT guidelines on income thresholds for jurisdiction.
- The implications of this decision could reshape how income tax assessments are conducted when jurisdictional issues arise, leaving unresolved merits of cash-deposit additions as academic.
Join the discussion ā sign up to comment, upvote, and save articles.