TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the assessment and had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, but did not proceed further with the framing of assessment. Under the circumstances, the assessment framed by ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly, is bad in law on two counts, firstly he did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to frame the assessment and secondly he himself did not form any belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment nor did he issue notice u/s 148 of the Act which was sine qua non to assume jurisdiction to frame to assessment. Decided in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2021 - Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 against the order dated 22.02.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Kolkata. 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order passed was in violation of principals of natural jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer. The reopening was bad in law and thus the reopening of the assessment be held bad in law and hence the assessment be quashed. 10. For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reasons recorded before reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 did not meet the test of law laid down by various courts and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 11. For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was on borrowed satisfaction and not on any independent application of mind by the assessing officer and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 12. For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was without any relevant material having link to escapement of income and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 13. For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding that the sanction u/s 151 of the IT Act 1961 before the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the assessee has further invited my attention to the copy of the Income Tax Return to submit that the returned income of the assessee was less than ₹ 15 lacs. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that as per the relevant statutory provisions not only the territorial jurisdiction but also the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officers/Assessing Officer has been fixed by the CBDT and that if the returned income is less than ₹ 15 lacs, the jurisdiction to frame to assessment lies to the Income Tax Officer whereas if the returned is more than ₹ 15 lacs, the jurisdiction lies with the concerned ACIT/JCIT. The ld. counsel has submitted that the jurisdiction to pass assessment order in this case lies with ITO, Ward-23, Hooghly, who, in fact had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, but the assessment has been done by ACIT who did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in this case. The ld. DR has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. However, he has submitted that the concerned ACIT being the overall in-charge of the concerned ward was competent to frame the assessment. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: Power to transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal 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. 8. A perusal of the above statutory provisions would reveal that jurisdiction to transfer case from one Assessing Officer to other Officer lies with the Officers as mentioned in section 127(1) who are of the rank of Commissioner or above. No document has been produced on the file by the Department to show that the case was transferred by the competent authority from ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly to ACIT, Circle- 23(1), Hooghly. Even, there is no document on the file that the ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly had ever recorded any reasons to form belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment nor did he issue any notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in the case of Soma Roy vs. ACIT in ITA No. 462/Kol/2019; Assessment Year 2015- 16, order dt. 8th January, 2020, under identical circumstances, held as under:- 5. After hearing rival contentions, I admit this additional ground as it is a legal ground, raising a jurisdictional issue and does not require any investigation into the facts. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per Board Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dt. 31/01/2011, the jurisdiction of the assessee is with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur, as the assessee is a non-corporate assessee and the income returned is above ₹ 15,00,000/- and whereas, the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 29/09/2016, by the Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Durgapur, who had no jurisdiction of the case. He submitted that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Durgapur, who had the jurisdiction over the assessee, but he had not issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Thus, he submits that the assessment is bad in law. 5.1. On merits, he rebutted the findings of the low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the then ITO, Ward-1, Haldia on 06.09.2013 and the same was served on the assessee on 19.09.2013 as noted by the AO. The AO noted that since the returned income is more than ₹ 15 lacs the case was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1, Haldia to ACIT, Circle-27 and the same was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014 and immediately ACIT issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring ₹ 50,28,040/-. The ITO issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2013. ii) The ITO, Ward-1, Haldia taking note that the income returned was above ₹ 15 lacs transferred the case to ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014. iii) On 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹ 50,28,040/-. As per the CBDT Instruction the monetary limits in respect to an assessee who is an individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Ward-I, Haldia and none other - But, notice was issued by Asstt. Commissioner, Circle Haldia much after CBDT's instruction and knowing fully well that he had no jurisdiction over assessee - Whether, therefore, notice issued by Asstt. Commissioner was invalid and consequently assessment framed by Income-tax Officers becomes void since issue of notice under section 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011. 9.2. The Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range I, reported in [2005] 278 ITR 218 (Cal.) has held as follows:- Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Tribunal - Held, yes Whether jurisdiction of Assessing Authority is not dependent on date of accrual of cause of action but on date when it is initiated - Held, yes - Whether once a particular jurisdiction is created, same must be prospective and cannot be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, we hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as required by the statute. Notice issue by the officer having no jurisdiction of the assessee is null and void. When a notice is issued by an officer having no jurisdiction, Section 292BB of the Act, does not comes into play. Coming to the argument of the ld. D/R that objection u/s 124(3) of the Act has to be taken by the assessee on rectifying notice u/s 143(2) of the Act from a non-jurisdictional assessing officer, I am of the view that I need not adjudicate this issue, as I have held that non-issual of statutory notice/s 143(2) of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer makes the assessment bad in law. Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal of the assessee. 6. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these orders stated above, we hold that the orders are bad in law for the reason that the assessing authority passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act i.e. DCIT-13(1), Kolkata has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and also for the reason that the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
