TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over the case. This fact was immediately pointed out by the assessee/petitioner by virtue of its letter dated 17.09.2013 where it had clearly indicated that it was regularly filing returns in Delhi and that the jurisdiction of the case was in Delhi. On this basis, it was requested that the said notice issued by the Bangalore office be withdraw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed, i.e., beyond 30.09.2013 in this case. As such, the impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act is barred by time. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP (C) No. 1741/2015, CM No. 3112/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2015 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Amol Sinha, Mr Manoj Dhir Ms Isha Gupta, Advs. For the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice under Section 143(2) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Bangalore on 10.09.2013. But, in our view, this does not save the impugned notice under Section 143(2). The reason for this is that the purported notice dated 10.09.2013 issued under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2014 To Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-2493), Central Revenue Building, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002 Madam/sir, Sub: Transfer of scrutiny assessment records in the case of M/s Sunworld Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd-reg. .. The above mentioned case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for A.Y. 2012-13 2013-14 notices u/s. 143(2) was issued at the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was one without jurisdiction and cannot be regarded as a valid notice. The first notice, therefore, which was issued by an Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. This was issued clearly beyond the period of limitation which has been prescribed, i.e., beyond 30.09.2013 in this case. As such, the impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act is barred by time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
