TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued statutory notice which was beyond the time limit prescribed for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. We note that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by assuming the jurisdiction after the time prescribed for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act notice became qoarum non judice after the limitation prescribed by the statute was crossed by him. Therefore, the issuance of notice by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-27, Haldia after the limitation period for issuance of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and makes the notice bad in the eyes of law - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2073/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 143(2) was illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated September 24, 2014 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-Haldia was beyond the stipulated time enumerated in the statute. The notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3. The assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-Haldia on the basis of illegal and invalid notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment order was illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 4. That the assessee never served any orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) dated January 31, 2011 the Central Board of Direct Taxes fixed a new monetary limit in moffussil areas, according to which income above ₹ 15 lakhs for non- corporate assessee and ₹ 20 lakhs for corporate returns has to be assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. Thus, according to the learned counsel since Haldia is a mofussil area and the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on the officers of the Department and since the assessee has declared more than ₹ 50 lakhs as his returned income, then the scrutiny assessment can be done only by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and not by the Income- tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Above ₹ 15 lakhs Up to ₹ 20 lakhs Above ₹ 20 lakhs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from April 1, 2011. 5. From a perusal of the above Instruction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes it is evident that the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on Income-tax Officers is in respect to the non-corporate returns filed where the income declared is only up to ₹ 15 lakhs ; and the Income-tax Officer doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note that the income returned was above ₹ 15 lakhs transferred the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-27, Haldia on September 24, 2014. (iii) On September 24, 2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction is dated January 31, 2011 and the assessee has filed the return of income on March 29, 2013 declaring a total income of ₹ 50,28,040. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction the monetary limits in respect to an assessee who is an individual which falls under the category of non-corporate returns the Income-tax Officer's increased monetary limit was up to &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od for issuance of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and makes the notice bad in the eyes of law and consequential assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is not valid in the eyes of law and, therefore, is null and void in the eyes of law. Therefore, the legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the assessment and the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue, the other grounds raised by the assessee need not to be adjudicated because it is only academic. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 27th Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
