2024 (1) TMI 326 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 2083 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - Basically the appeal has been filed after 2083 days of the ld. CIT s order but almost more than two years is attributable to COVID period, i.e. March ,2020 to May,2022. Besides , we note that the assessee has shifted to Portblair and has been filing the returns of income there only from A.Y. 2008-09 onwards. However the Notices in this case were issued by JCIT ,Range 37 Kolkata and were sent on the kalkata address and hence the proceedings could not be attended. Similarly the appeal of the assessee was also decided ex-parte the order was not served on the Portblair address. Moreover, making the appeal time-barred has not been used by the assessee as a tactics to avoid the litigation with the Revenue because such strategy would not give any benefit to the assessee in this type of litigation. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. AO jurisdiction to frame the assessment - scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) was issued by JCIT , Range-37, Kolkata - HELD THAT - We find that in this case the jurisdiction of assessee was with JCIT, Austinabad, Port Blair whereas the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by JCIT, Range-37, Kolkata. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee has been filing the returns of income in Port Blair right from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and even the communications to the assessee by ACIT CPC Bangluru has been addressed at Port Blair address meaning thereby that even in the PAN data, the address of the assessee has been changed. We note that the assessment has been framed by JCIT, Range-37, Kolkata who is not having the jurisdiction over the assessee. The Ld. A.R also placed before us the copy of CBDT circular being No. 228/2001 (S.O. 732(E)F. No. 187/5/2001-ITA-1 dated 31.07.2001 states that the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal has the jurisdiction over Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Island and Commissioner of Income Tax,-13, Kolkata with Head Quarter Kolkata, West Bengal is neither having the territorial jurisdiction nor pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee. Thus we note that the assessment has been framed by the AO which is not having the jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Accordingly the assessment is invalid. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. Smt. Manjula Shukla 2022 (10) TMI 1111 - ITAT KOLKATA and in the case of M/s Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (12) TMI 930 - ITAT KOLKATA . We therefore respectfully following the same, quash the assessment framed by the AO and allow the appeal of the assessee on legal issue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. General nature of Ground no. 1.
2. Validity of the assessment order due to jurisdictional issues.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Summary:

1. General Nature of Ground no. 1:
The Tribunal noted that Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require adjudication.

2. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Jurisdictional Issues:
The primary legal issue raised in Ground no. 2 pertains to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in framing the assessment. The assessee contended that the AO from Range-37, Kolkata, lacked jurisdiction as the assessee had shifted to Port Blair and had been filing returns there since AY 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the notices were issued to the Kolkata address despite the assessee's known residence in Port Blair. The Tribunal referenced the CBDT circular No. 228/2001, which clarified that the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, had jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Consequently, the assessment framed by JCIT, Range-37, Kolkata, was deemed invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order was quashed.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal addressed the delay of 2083 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay to several factors, including relocation, serious illness, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided and referenced the Supreme Court's liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" in condoning delays. Notably, the Tribunal considered the COVID-19 period and the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not intentional and condoned it, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed on the legal issue of jurisdiction, rendering the assessment invalid. Consequently, the merits of the case were not adjudicated. The order was pronounced in open court on January 5, 2024.