TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er framed the reassessment. It is clear from the perusal of the assessment order as well as from the records that ITO, Wd-36(4) has not issued any notice u/s. 148 whereas notice has been issued by ITO, Ward-45(4) dated 27.03.2019. In this admitted facts and having noticed that the ITO, Wd-36(4) had not issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act before framing the reassessment order we are inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee. Impugned notice of the ITO, Wd-45(4) u/s. 148 who did not had jurisdiction at all is quashed and, therefore, all the consequential action is null in the eyes of law. - I.T.A. No. 5/Kol/2022 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2022 - Shri A. T. Varkey , JM For the Appellant : Shri S. M. Surana , Advocate For the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper book which it is noted is a Notification No. 64/2014 [F. No. 187/40/2014 (ITA-1)]/SO2910E, dated 13.11.2014 which empowered the Ld. Pr. CIT, West Bengal Sikkim Region to transfer jurisdiction of the assessee s based on their Pin Code; and according to the Ld. AR, the assessee s Pin code falls accordingly in the jurisdiction of Range-36, Kolkata. According to the Ld. AR, as per the CBDT direction/Pr. CIT s order the ITO, Wd-36(4), Kolkata got the jurisdiction to assess the assessee; and according to him, there is no quarrel on this issue. However, according to the Ld. AR, despite there was change in jurisdiction as afore-stated, the reopening notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by ITO, Wd-45(4), Kolkata dated 27.03.2019 instead by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that before the CBDT circular dated 13.11.2014 the jurisdiction of ITO was based on Pin Code only. According to him, after the CBDT circular of 2014, some restructuring exercises were carried out by the department and based on that there were some changes in jurisdiction. However, according to him, the issue what has to be seen is whether the assessee got proper opportunity before the AO before framing of assessment and since from a perusal of the assessment order itself it is clear that assessee has participated before the ITO, Wd-36(4) and the AO has taken into consideration the contention of the assessee and has gone through the records and thereafter has framed the reassessment order, the AO s action cannot be faulted for non-issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as from the records that ITO, Wd-36(4) has not issued any notice u/s. 148 of the Act whereas notice has been issued by ITO, Ward-45(4) dated 27.03.2019. In this admitted facts and having noticed that the ITO, Wd-36(4) had not issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act before framing the reassessment order dated 27.12.2019, I am inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee. For doing that, I rely on the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High court in the case of Smt. Smriti Kedia (supra) and West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra) and the Tribunal s order cited supra. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned notice of the ITO, Wd-45(4) u/s. 148 dated 27.03.2019 (refer page 9 of paper book) who did not had jurisdiction at all is quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
