Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 968 - AT - Income TaxValidity of re-assessment proceedings - jurisdiction to issue notice - Validity of notice u/s 143(2) as issued by the ITO, Ward 33(2)(3) who was not empowered - HELD THAT:- As decided in Ashok Devichand Jain [2022 (3) TMI 1466 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as also dealt with the Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31/01/2011 issued by the CBDT which is also under consideration before us and notice u/s 148 of the Act is also a statutory and jurisdictional notice and, therefore, goes to the root of the assessment. The Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that ITO who had issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act had no jurisdiction over the petitioner. The notice u/s 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice and any inherent defect therein is not a curable one. We further observe that Tribunal in the case of Ketan Tokershi Shah [2023 (8) TMI 874 - ITAT MUMBAI] also dealt with the identical issue and the Instruction No.1/2011 as well and following the judgment in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs UOI & Ors [2022 (3) TMI 1466 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane as without jurisdiction and consequently quashed the assessment. We further observe that the jurisdictional co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs Parmar Built Tech [2022 (9) TMI 1547 - ITAT MUMBAI] also dealt with the identical issue and by following the judgment of Ashok Devichand Jain (supra), quashed the assessment order in the identical facts. As observe that in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt Ltd [2021 (2) TMI 181 - ITAT KOLKATA] also dealt with the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and ultimately held the notice issued by the DCIT as defective and consequently quashed the assessment by holding that the assessing authority, who passed the order u/s 143(3) i.e. DCIT-13(1), Kolkata has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and also for the reason that the jurisdiction of these cases lies with the ITO and not the DCIT. It is trite to say that as per dictum in the case of ACIT VS Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] the notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory for making the assessment and therefore the same is required to be issued by the Assessing Officer, who has jurisdiction and is empowered to issue the notice under section 143(2) of the Act and to make the assessment. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality specific to the effect ITO who issued the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) had no jurisdiction and infact was not empowered to make the assessment, and therefore respectfully following the dictum laid down by Hon’ble High Court in Ashok Devichand Jain case (supra) to the effect that “inherent defect is not curable”, we do not have any hesitation to quash the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment order itself is quashed.
|