9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.17,87,960/- be deleted." Also the assessee has raised before us an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s.143(2) dt. 01-8-12 (within time) has been issued by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur who is not the jurisdiction AO and no valid notice u/s.143(2) within 6 months period has been issued by the jurisdictional A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dt.12-3-14 is invalid, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a government employee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 15.10.2011, declaring an income of Rs.,6,44,800/- a/w. agriculture income of Rs.72,400/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 3. Original assessment was thereafter framed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,45,44,960/- after making the following additions /disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Long ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the preceding years had filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e AY 2011-12 with the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was however in receipt of a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur i.e. a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee thereafter was in receipt of notice(s) u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 142(1), dated 11.12.2013 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, Page 1 to 5 of APB. However, the assessee subsequently received notice(s) u/s 143(2), dated 07.01.2014 and u/s. 142(1), dated 17.01.2014 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur (C.G) i.e. the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Page 9 to 11 of APB and Page 17 of APB. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessment was thereafter framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the notice u/s.143(2), dated 07.01.2014 was issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meaning of "Assessing Officer" u/s. 2(7A) of the Act, therefore, the very basis for triggering the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 were not satisfied. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that the obligation cast upon the assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as per sub-section (3) to Section 124 of the Act would only come into play where the notice was received from either of the authority contemplated in Section 2(7A) of the Act, i.e, who was either vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of any directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act or any other provision of the Act; or any such authority who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as in the present case the assessee was in receipt of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, who did not fall within the meaning of "Assessing Officer" as defined in Section 2(7A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2), dated 01.08.2012 that was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur rebutted the challenge of the assessee's counsel to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 12.03.2014. It was submitted by the ld. DR that though the case of the assessee on selection of his case for scrutiny assessment under CASS was on the basis of his PAN details allocated to the aforesaid officer, i.e., Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, but thereafter as the same was transferred by him to the jurisdictional Officer i.e. the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur who had proceeded with and well within the stipulated time period framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 12.03.2014, therefore, no infirmity as regards the validity of jurisdiction assumed or the assessment so framed emerged from the record. 15. Rebutting the aforesaid contention of the department, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the law did not recognize any jurisdiction on PAN data base for the reason that the same was in the nature of an internal arrangement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver the case of the assessee before us. On a perusal of the records it transpires that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur vide a letter dated 31.12.2013 addressed to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, on realizing that the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was not vested with him but with the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, had therein transferred/delivered the case records to him a/w. a word of caution that the limitation for framing of the assessment in the case of the assessee u/s.143(3) was available up to 31.03.2014, (Page 28 of assessment folder-II). For the sake of clarity the aforesaid letter dated 31.12.2013 (supra) is being reproduced as under: As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional A.O who was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had thereafter issued notice u/s. 143(2) only as on 07.01.2014 i.e. immediately on the next date on which the case records were delivered to him by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur. 18. Controversy involved in the present appeal boils down to the solitary issue, i.e., as to whether or not the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Nopany & Sons (2022) 286 Taxman 388(Cal). Facts before the Hon'ble High Court were that the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward-3 to ITO, Ward-4. Assessment order was thereafter passed by the ITO, Ward-4 only in pursuance of notice issued by ITO, Ward-3, who had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal and held the impugned assessment order as null and void. 20. Apropos the contention of the department that now when the assessee as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 had not called in question the jurisdiction of the A.O within the stipulated time period of one month from the date of issuance of notice u/s.143(2), dated 01.08.2012 by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, therefore, he could not have assailed the same for the very first time in the course of the present proceedings, in our considered view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.143(2), dated 01.08.2012 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was not a notice issued by an authority falling w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, and thus, did not fall within the meaning of "Assessing Officer" as defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act, therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have called in question the assumption of jurisdiction by him to issue notice u/s 143(2), dated 01.08.2012 to the assessee. Also, as it is not the case of the department that the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur who had issued notice to the assessee u/s.143(2), dated 01.08.2012 was exercising concurrent jurisdiction over his case under sub-section (5) of Section 120 of the Act, therefore, as claimed by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, the invalidity/illegality of the notice issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur would also not be saved on the said count. 22. Also, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that as it is neither the case of the department nor a fact borne from record that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur had got vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee pursuant to any transfer of jurisdiction over his case from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur u/s.127 of the Act, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by him would also not be ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxmann.com 174(Kol).
24. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations concur with the contention advanced by the Ld. AR that as the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 12.03.2014 had been framed de hors any valid notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Accordingly, we quash the assessment framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Bilaspur vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 12.03.2014 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part.
25. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the A.O for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the other grounds that have been raised by the assessee before us as regards the sustainability of the addition on the merits of the case, which, thus, are left open.
26 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, by placing the details on the notice board. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
