TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn will go to the territorial ITO of the assessee and not to the proper jurisdiction where the case is transferred under section 127. Hence, this argument will not stand. This issue of the assessee s appeal is allowed. Once, the issue on jurisdiction is decided in favour of assessee and notice under section 143(2) is quashed, consequential assessment will not stand. Hence, we quash the assessment order and allow the appeal of the assessee. Notice issued u/s 143(2) as without jurisdiction and void ab-initio - HELD THAT:- An order under section 127(2) of the Act was passed on 09/05/2011 by office of Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central), Pune Transferring jurisdiction of the appellant s case from DCIT, CC-1, Thane to ITO ward 2, Panvel, whereas the ITO ward 2, Panvel had issued notice u/s 143(2) much earlier on 20.08.2010 and 27.09.2010 i.e. even before the transfer order is passed. Therefore, said notices were without jurisdiction. Further, it was pointed out that at the same point of time, assessee received notice under section 143(2) of the Act from the Central Circle, Thane for AY 2008-09. The notice for AY 2008-09 were issued in accordance with jurisdiction vested due to ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee vide ITO Ward-2, Panvel on 20.08.2010 and 27.09.2010. The same was served by registered post AD on 27.08.2010 upon the assessee. Once again, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 27.09.2010 was served on the assessee by ITO Ward-2 Panvel through notice server, which were served on 29.09.2010. Accordingly, the assessee raised objection regarding jurisdiction stating that the assessee s jurisdiction lies with ACIT, DCIT Central Circle, Thane consequent to search carried out on the assessee by the Income Tax Department. 4. The assessee objected before the AO but AO after considering the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act rejected the objection stating that the objections were raised after one month and in view of the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act, the objection regarding jurisdiction should have been taken before the expiry of one month from the date on which the assessee firm has been served with the notice under section 143(2) of the Act or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. The CIT(A) rejected the ground raised regarding assessment framed by non-jurisdictional AO. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that ACIT, Panvel acquired jurisdiction over appellant wef 20/05.2011, therefore, notices under section 143(2) issued by ITO, Panvel Prior to said date were invalid, leading to the impugned assessment order becoming null void ab initio. 26.09.2011 Notices under section 143(2) issued by ACIT Panvel, which was time barred. Case laws on jurisdiction 1. Kie infrastructure projects vs. Income TAx Officer (2015) 154 ITD 280 (Delhi _Trib) 2. Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd vs. DY Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (1), Pune 2017 (10) TMI 48 ITAT Pune (para 11 13) 3. As per case law of synopsis submitted Date Events AY 2008-09 Order u/s 143(3) passed by DCIT, CC-1, Thane dt 28.12.2010 (PB-113) 26.09.2009 Return of income filed 20.08.2010 Notice u/s 143(2) from ITO Ward 2 Panvel 27.09.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 127 of the Act it is clear that ACIT, Panvel acquired jurisdiction over assessee w.e.f. 20.05.2011, therefore, notices under section 143(2) of the Act issued by ITO, Panvel were invalid, leading to the assessment order becoming null void. 7. On the issue of applicability of section 124(3) of the Act, we noted that the said section applies where jurisdiction is to be decided by virtue of section 120 of the Act. As per section 124(1) of the Act the jurisdiction on basis of section 120 of the Act is to he challenged within 30 days. However, the instant ease is under section 127 of the Act. In this case the Jurisdiction as transferred u/s 127 of Act before CIT-Central Circle-Thane. In accordance with said transfer order, the DCIT-CC- Thane initiated assessment proceedings for AY 2008-09. However, subsequently ITO Ward-2, Panvel initiated assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10 before obtaining an order u/s 127 of the Act decentralizing the change of the assessee. The Ld Counsel relied on decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cuminus Ltd vs DCIT (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Del.) to submit that once the proper officer exercised the jurisdiction, the subsequent notice by an offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned Counsel for the assessee narrated the facts which are detailed as under: - Date Particulars 29 / 09 . 2010 31 / 01 / 2011 09 . 05 . 2011 Wef 20 / 05 / 2011 Return of Income filed Notification with effect from 01 . 04 . 2011 matter assigned to ACIT Order under section 127 Jurisdiction transferred from Thane to Panvel Effect On a combined reading of above notification and order it is clear that ACIT Panvel acquired jurisdiction on the appellant on 20 / 05 . 2011 24 / 08 / 2011 30 / 09 / 2011 17 / 01 / 2012 Notice under section 143 ( 2 ) issued by ITO ward 2, Panvel instead of ACIT which was without jurisdiction . Expiry of time limit fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was passed on 09/05/2011 by office of Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central), Pune Transferring jurisdiction of the appellant s case from DCIT, CC-1, Thane to ITO ward 2, Panvel, whereas the ITO ward 2, Panvel had issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act much earlier on 20.08.2010 and 27.09.2010 i.e. even before the transfer order is passed. Therefore, said notices were without jurisdiction. Further, it was pointed out that at the same point of time, assessee received notice under section 143(2) of the Act from the Central Circle, Thane for AY 2008-09. The notice for AY 2008-09 were issued in accordance with jurisdiction vested due to centralization of the assessee s case. This tantamount to concurrent jurisdiction which is impressible under law. Thus, the notice for AY 2009-10 were invalid. We noted the facts that on a combined reading of notice and order under section 127 of the Act it is clear that ACIT, Panvel acquired jurisdiction over assessee w.e.f. 20.05.2011, therefore, notices under section 143(2) issued by ITO, Panvel were invalid, leading to the impugned order becoming null void. On the issue of applicability of section 124(3) of the Act, similar are the argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
