TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplated u/s. 127 of the Act to ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata. In the light of the above as well as the contention of the assessee that no opportunity of hearing was rendered to it by ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata before framing assessment u/s. 144 of the Act which omission on the part of AO also is against principles of natural justice and the impugned assessment u/s 144 of the Act is fragile for non-adherence of principles of natural justice on the part of AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1461/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2018 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D. Shah, FCA For The Respondent : Shri N. Murmu, JCIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-23, Kolkata dated 28.04.2017 for AY 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised legal issues by preferring additional grounds of appeal (i) that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was issued by ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata (who framed the assessment order) was issued or served on the assessee. And the additional ground no. (ii) is that the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corporate entity like the assessee company, hence the assessment order framed by the AO (ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata) without issuing notice u/s. 143(2) upon the assessee company is null in the eyes of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee company did not receive any scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act from ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata though it has been acknowledged by the AO in the assessment order by ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata. Since the assessee did not receive any notice the assessee company could not represent or file documents and comply before the ITO in the said proceedings. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee company was not aware of the purported transfer of jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata since it did not receive any notice u/s. 127 of the Act from the Pr. CIT- 12, Kolkata transferring the file from ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata. He also brought to our notice that the assessee company did not receive any notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act from ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata as stated by AO in the assessment order. Because of which there was no com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2014. The Designated Income Tax Authority as per serial No. 159 is Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2; Headquarter is Kolkata, West Bengal (Page 14 of paper book). Whereas a perusal of Notification of CBDT No. 228/2001 dated 31.07.2001 (Page 20 of paper book) reveals that Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII has jurisdiction over persons other than companies deriving income from sources other than income from business or profession (though residing in PIN 700 001). We also note from Notification No. 50/2014 dated 15.11.2014, issued from the office of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Sikkim which takes effect from 15.11.2014 (page 5 of paper book) that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, is the designated officer and under him Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT, Range-6, Kolkata has been placed under his charge (page 7 of paper book). On perusal of page 9 reveals that under the Pr. CIT/CIT, Kolkata-12 the Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT, Range-34, Kolkata has been placed under him (page 9 of the paper book). Thus from a perusal of the aforesaid facts reveal that the assessee being a company registered under the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Since the department has failed to adduce any evidence to contradict the claim of assessee that ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata who was the jurisdictional AO did not issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before deciding to scrutinize and frame assessment u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act, the legal challenge made by the assessee by way of additional ground nos. 1 to 3, ( which reads as under) needs to succeed: Additional Ground-1: For that no notice issued u/s 143(2) of the IT Act 1961 was served on the assessee and hence the assessment order passed deserves to be quashed. Additional Ground-2: For that the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the IT Act 1961 was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law and hence the assessment order passed deserves to be quashed. Additional Ground-3: For that the transfer of case without order u/ s 127 of the IT Act 1961 was bad in law and hence the assessment order passed deserves to be quashed. 6. We find that no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata before completing the assessment. We note that ITO, Wd-34(2), Kolkata did not enjoy the jurisdiction over the assessee company by virtue of both the earlier No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
