9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Act' in relation to the said assessment order. 3. BECAUSE the "Pr. CIT" has erred in law and on the facts in setting aside the assessment order dated 25.03.2015 passed by 'Dy. Commissioner. of Income tax, Lucknow under section 143 (3) of the Act on the single issue by holding that the said assessment order was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and in setting aside the same in exercise of his revisionary power under section 263 with the direction to the assessing officer "To frame a fresh assessment order as per law, after making necessary enquiries and examination of the issues involved and affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 4. BECAUSE the "Pr. CIT" while exercising his revisionary powers under, section 263 of the Act, has completely failed to appreciate that: a) On the issue raised in the show cause notice, the "AO" had made all such enquiries as were 'called for on the facts of the case; b) the cash payments made by the appellant to M/s. Moral Capital Services Ltd. c) enquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act in respect of cash payments was also made by the Assessing Officer. and accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 12. BECAUSE selection of case for scrutiny assessment is the sole prerogative of the Assessing Officer himself and in the present case, notice under section 143(2)(ii) issued on the basis of Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection Methodology (CASS) had vitiated the whole assessment proceedings rendering the assessment order under section'143(3), dated 25.03.2015 as bad in law, and consequently the said nonest assessment order could not have been validly subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return for the year under consideration, declaring an income of Rs. 1,40,390/- on 30.09.2012. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 2,60,390/-. The case records of the assessee were called for and examined by the Pr. CIT. According to the Pr. CIT, it had emerged from the perusal of the record that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, considering the facts, issued a show cause notice dated 21.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahead with the proceedings under section 263 of the Act. With regard to the issue relating to initiation of collateral proceedings on valid legal platform, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. 'Westlife Development Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT', [2016] 49 ITR (Trib.) 406 (Mum). 2. 'P.V. Doshi vs. CIT', [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj.). 3. 'Hema Knitting Industries vs. ACIT', [2010] 127 ITD 160 (Chennai). 4. 'Valiant Glass Works (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT', order dated 27.7.2016 in ITA No.1612/Mum/2013. 8. The ld. D.R., on the legal issue of jurisdiction, submitted that the Dy. CIT-6, Lucknow had valid jurisdiction over the assessee and the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was legal and valid, and that therefore, the contention of the assessee that the Dy. CIT-6, Lucknow was not validly vested with the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer over the assessee, is not justified. 9. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. 10. In 'Westlife Development Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT' (supra), it was held by the Bombay 'G' Bench of the Tribunal that the validity of order passed in primary (original) proceedings should be allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from record that the jurisdiction of the assessee lay with an ITO of Kalyan, Maharashtra and not with the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Lucknow 14. Section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which concerns Income Tax authorities and their jurisdiction, reads as follows: "Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area. (2) Where a question arises under this section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director General or Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120." 15. From the above, evidently, it is the Income-tax authorities specified in section 124 of the Income Tax Act, who have jurisdiction in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situated within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on. It is an undisputed fact that the business of the assessee is in the State of Maharashtra and not in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the notice was issued by an Assessing Officer not holding jurisdiction over the assessee. That being so, the notice is null and void and it is held to be so. 16. In 'Raza Textiles Ltd. vs. ITO', [1973] 87 ITR 539 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a jurisdictional fact cannot be erroneously decided and on the basis thereof, a penalty imposed, by an Assessing Officer. 17. In 'Indorama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
