TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is clear that for a valid assumption of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act should be issued by the Ld. CIT. In this case, it is undisputed that notice was issued by ACIT, Hqrs, Burdwan who is not competent to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the notice was not under the seal and signature of Ld. CIT. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.310-311/Kol/2009 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2014 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member Assessee Shri Souomitra Chodhury, A.R Respondent Shri Ravi Jain, CIT, DR O R D E R PER Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member:- These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls is attributed to the mistake of the consultant, in our considered opinion, assessee should not be penalized on this count. The case law referred by the Ld. counsel for the assessee also supports this proposition. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. As regards the matter in appeal, we note that the same is against order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the notice to the assessee u/s. 263 of the Act in these case, was issued by letter dated 06-03-2007. The said notice was signed by ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan for Commissioner. Referring to this aspect, the Ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that Section 263 of the Act provides for notice and adjudication b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. This notice was signed as under:- Yours faithfully Sd/- Vikramaditya (Vikramaditdya) ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan, For Commissioner. From the above, it is clear that the said notice u/s. 263 of the Act ha s not been signed by the Commissioner of Income Tax rather it has been signed by ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan. The Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey (supra) has expounded that when the Ld. CIT has not recorded his satisfaction, but it was the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer (Technical) who is not competent to revise his order u/s. 263 of the Act, the order passed was liable to be set aside. The relevant portion of the order of Hon ble Allahabad High Court reads as under:- 6. On perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the provision of law and the case law in this regard, it is clear that for a valid assumption of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act should be issued by the Ld. CIT. In this case, it is undisputed that notice was issued by ACIT, Hqrs, Burdwan who is not competent to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the notice was not under the seal and signature of Ld. CIT. Hence, as per the precedents referred to above, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act in this case is not valid. Accordingly, the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed in these cases are quashed. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 06/05/2014 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
