TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(3) of the income tax office. On a question to the learned DR to ascertain whether there was any order passed by the competent income tax authorities under section 127 of the Act for transferring the case of the assessee from one AO to the AO. But he could not make any satisfactory reply. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27 December 2007 by the DCIT-Circle 12 and consequential assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act dated 7 December 2010 by the AO of ward 2(3) is invalid as such income authorities never had jurisdiction over the assessee in the manner provided under section 127 of the Act. Thus both the orders are liable to be quashed. See AJANTHA INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS [ 1975 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] Order passed by the AO as discussed above is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, any addition made to the total income of the assessee in such order cannot be upheld - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2400/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) - - - Dated:- 25-10-2019 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has blindly copied the earlier order that had been set aside by the CITI, Ahmedabad. 8. All these additions are contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act, but the Ld. CIT-Appeals failed to delete these additions. 9. The Appellant craves leave of the Hon ble Tribunal to amend, modify, and add above grounds of appeal if necessary. 3. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is that the AO of ward 2(3) of the Act has framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act without having jurisdiction over the assessee, therefore the order is void ab initio. 4. At the outset, the learned AR before us submitted that the case of the assessee was transferred from the jurisdiction of the ITO 12(1), Ahmedabad to Dy.CIT Circle 12, Ahmedabad to the present ITO 2(3), Ahmedabad (the A.O. for short) without following the procedure for the transfer of a case of an assessee from the jurisdiction of one Assessing Officer to another as prescribed u/s 127 of the Act. The assessee has not been served with any order passed by the compete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the order in consequence to the direction of the learned CIT under section 263 of the Act was passed by the ITO ward 2(3) under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act vide order dated 7-12- 2010. Now the controversy arises whether the transfer of jurisdiction of the assessee in the light of the facts and circumstances described above, is within the provisions of law as specified under section 127 of the Act. The relevant extract of the provision of section 127 of the Act reads as under: (1) The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er recording the reason and giving an opportunity of being heard to assessee in pursuance to the provisions specified under section 127 of the Act. However, we note that there was no compliance of the provision of section 127 of the Act for transferring the case of the assessee from ITO ward 12(1) to DCIT-Circle 12 and then further transfer to ITO ward 2(3) of the income tax office. On a question to the learned DR to ascertain whether there was any order passed by the competent income tax authorities under section 127 of the Act for transferring the case of the assessee from one AO to the AO. But he could not make any satisfactory reply. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27 December 2007 by the DCIT-Circle 12 and consequential assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act dated 7 December 2010 by the AO of ward 2(3) is invalid as such income authorities never had jurisdiction over the assessee in the manner provided under section 127 of the Act. Thus both the orders are liable to be quashed. In this regard, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
