TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PREME COURT] , United Commercial Bank [ 1951 (4) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT] and Kanwar Singh Saini [ 2011 (9) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT] without entering into the merits of the captioned appeals, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders suffer from jurisdictional defect which is not curable having been passed by CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida after his compulsory retirements with effect from 11.06.2019, when he was functus officio, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. hence, nullities. We set aside the captioned appeals to the files of the CIT(A) having jurisdiction over the captioned assessee s and decide the issue afresh expediously after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA No.6814/Del/2019, 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction to CIT(A), Ghaziabad and other CsIT(A) of UP(Weast Uttrakhand). Although the tax effect in the case is less than the amount specified by the CBDT, the case falls in exception 10(b) of CBDT circular no. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida has Rs. 6,13,186/- erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,26,622/- on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act as well as addition u/s 69C of Rs. 57,799/-, without considering the facts brought on record. Reliance is placed on judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra Vs ITO Ward- 50(1) in ITA No. 220/2019 CM No. 10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019 and of Hon ble Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al CIT(A), Ghaziabad. The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench read as under :- 5. Undisputedly Sri S.K. Srivastava Ld. CIT(A)-1 Noida was having jurisdiction over appeals filed under Income Tax Act pertaining to Noida-1 and Noida-2; it is also not in dispute that CIT(A)-1, Noida was having no jurisdiction over the appeals pertaining to Ghaziabad Jurisdiction. 6. It is also not in dispute that Sri S.K. Srivastava got compulsorily retired with effect from 1 1.06.2019. It is also not in dispute that on the complaint filed by Ms. Anuja Sarangi, Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT-Vigilance) FIR bearing no. RC 1202019A0004 dated 04.07.2019 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. From the copy of notification dated 13lh November, 2014 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) copy of order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur specifying the jurisdiction of CIT(A)s, copy of FIR No. RC 1202019A0004 dated 04.07.2019 and report on the basis of vigilance inspection qua the work and conduct of Sh.S.K. Srivastava CIT(A)-1 Noida conducted by D.G.I.T(Vigilance), New Delhi, it is proved on record that Sri S.K.Srivastava CIT(A)- 1, Noida who was compulsorily retired w.e.f 11.06.2019 and vigilance team of Income Tax conducted vigilance inspection qua his work and conduct found following illegalities and irregularities committed by him:- a. Sh.Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, IRS ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irregularities brought on record by the Vigilance Inspection Team of Income Tax Department qua the work and conduct of CIT(A)-Noida it has come on record CIT(A)-I, Noida has decided Income Tax Appeals referred to in preceding para no. 7 pertaining to Ghaziabad Jurisdiction over which he has no jurisdiction purportedly on 31.12.2018 whereas it is proved on record that all these appeals were disposed of in the month of June, 2019 after his compulsory retirement. It is also proved on record that all the impugned orders have been uploaded on ITBA system between 11th June to 13th June, 2019 after his demitting the office by Sri S.K.Srivastava, CIT(A)-1 and2 Noida. It is also proved that he has uploaded the impugned orders to the Central Server ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. [Vide United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Workmen, Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios, Sardar Hasan Siddiqui v. STAT, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, Karnal Improvement Trust v. Parkash Wantft, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure (P) Ltd., Slate of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot, Kesar Singh v. Sadhu, Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Supan Gujar and CCE v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd.] 11. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Anrs (2008) 6 SCC 789 held that jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter and the entire proceedings having been initiated illegally and without jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
