Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 633 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - jurisdiction of AO over the assessee for framing of assessment - jurisdiction over the assessee vested with ITO or ACIT-3(1), Raipur - HELD THAT:- The multi-facet issues pertaining to the assumption of jurisdiction by an A.O. in light of the pecuniary/monetary limits contemplated in CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 r.w. CBDT Instruction No.6/2011 remains the same as had been looked into at length by the “SMC” of the ITAT, Raipur, in assessee’s own case for the immediately succeeding year, i.e. A.Y,.2010-11, [2023 (10) TMI 1360 - ITAT RAIPUR] as held we are unable to comprehend on what basis the case of the assessee de-hors any order as per the mandate of Section 127 of the Act was initially transferred by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur on 05/02/2014 to the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur. At this stage, it would be relevant to observe that as per sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act, even in case there is a transfer of any case from any A.O or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other A.O or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction), the requirement of passing an order of transfer under the aforesaid statutory provision is required and the same cannot be dispensed with. We may further observe that the order of transfer of the assessee’s case by the ITO-Ward 1(2), Raipur to DCIT-Circle 1(1), Raipur on 05.02.104 was much prior to Notifications No. 1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014 and Notification No. 1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014, based on which jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the DCIT/ACIT- 3(1), Raipur, as brought to our notice by the A.O. As the assessment in the case of the assessee had been framed by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur, who in light of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (supra) r.w. CBDT Instruction No.6/2011 was not vested with any jurisdiction for framing of assessment in the case of the assessee who had declared Nil income; therefore, the order so passed by him cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Thus, the Ground of Appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations. Thus the assessment framed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 28.10.2016 is quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. Decided in favour of assessee.
|