TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur remains an unresolved mystery till date. On a specific query by the bench as to on what basis the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, the Ld. DR could not give any plausible answer. Only contention of the Ld. DR was that the case of the assessee was allocated to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur on the basis of PAN jurisdiction. Thus we are unable to concur with the Ld. DR that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was validly vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of allocation of his case on PAN data base. Our aforesaid view that an invalid jurisdiction assumed by the A.O cannot be held to be correct by drawing support from PAN jurisdiction is supported by the order of NVS Builders (P.) Ltd. [ 2018 (4) TMI 381 - ITAT DELHI] and that of Cosmat Traders P. Ltd. [ 2021 (4) TMI 1020 - ITAT KOLKATA] We, 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 AO i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of land Rs.1,20,75,183/- 2. Unexplained investment by way of deposits in bank Rs. 17,87,960/- 3. Amount received from M/s. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,000/- 4. Disallowance of assessee s claim for deduction of interest on house loan Rs. 34,021/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who except for sustaining an addition made by the A.O u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.17,87,960/- vacated all the remaining additions/disallowances, and thus, partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assesee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 7. We shall before proceeding any further deal with the maintainability of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts, 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. the jurisdictional officer for the very first time on 11.01.2013 i.e. beyond the stipulated time period of 6 months from end of the relevant assessment year 2011-12 which had lapsed way back on 30.09.2012, therefore, the assessment framed by him u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014 de hors issuance of a valid notice u/s.143(2) of the Act could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. 11. Adverting to the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012 that was issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the said notice was issued by a non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer, therefore, the same was non-est and had no existence in the eyes of law. The Ld. A.R in order to buttress his claim that the territorial jurisdiction in the case of the assessee was vested with the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur had drawn our attention to the copy of the return of income that was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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) of the Act, therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have questioned his jurisdiction on receipt of the same. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur by no means could be brought within the definition of Assessing Officer exercising concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee under subsection (5) of Section 120 of the Act, therefore, issuance of notice by him u/s. 143(2) of the Act could not be justified and saved on the said count. 12. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that it was neither the case of the department nor a fact discernible from the record that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was vested with the territorial jurisdiction pursuant to any transfer of the assessee s case from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur u/s.127 of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was vehemently averred by the Ld. AR that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 the department which had no statutory recognition. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that now when as per subsection (3) of Section 120 of the Act the various jurisdictions as recognized under the law had clearly been spelt out, viz. (i) territorial jurisdiction; (ii) persons or classes of persons jurisdiction; (iii) jurisdiction on the basis of income/classes of income i.e. pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iv) jurisdiction as per cases or classes of cases, and there was no reference of any PAN based jurisdiction, therefore, the claim of the Ld. DR that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of PAN details was an absolutely incorrect statement which had no legs to stand upon. 16. As the Ld. AR has assailed before us the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, on the ground that neither the said officer at any point of time was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee; nor was the case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 order passed u/s.143(3), dated 12.03.2014, in the absence of any notice u/s. 143(2) having been issued within the prescribed time period of six months from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e upto 30.09.2012 by an Assessing Officer vested with jurisdiction over the assessee s case is sustainable in the eyes of law?. Corollary that flows from the aforesaid issue is as to whether or not the assessment framed by the A.O exercising jurisdiction over the case of the assesee i.e. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur vide order passed u/s.143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment 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 within the meaning of Assessing Officer i.e. either of the authorities contemplated in Section 2(7A) of the Act, viz. such authority who was 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 was directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Act; there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 justified on the said count. Admittedly, no order u/s.127 of the Act evidencing any transfer of the case of the assessee from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional Officer to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur is available on the assessment record. On the contrary, as observed by us hereinabove, though the jurisdictional history of the assessee reveals that his case on 27.09.2013 was transferred from the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, but as to on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
