9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the authority completing the assessment and the authority issuing the notice did not possess the jurisdiction. ii. That even otherwise transfer of case during pendency of proceedings in the absence of order u/s 127 is illegal and there cannot be a suo moto transfer by AO. iii. That application of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without prejudice to above is misconceived since agreement of sale was entered prior to applicability of the provision itself by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. A.Y. 2014-15. iv. That the appellant reserves the right to raise additional grounds." 2. First, we take up ITA No. 690/Kol/2023 in which the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2015-16 by declari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lidity of the assessment order in absence of any effective order passed u/s 127 of the Act and prayed for set aside the order of authorities below as it was illegal and liable to be set aside. On this issue, ld. AR contended that as per CBDT instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, it is stated that in case of non-corporate cases return above the income of 15 lacs, pecuniary jurisdiction lies before ACIT/DCIT in mofussil area. The assessee firm carries out its business in Berhampore which is a mufussil area. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with ACIT/DCIT and the case of the assessee for scrutiny u/s 143(2) was with DCIT/ACIT. He further contended that in the present case of assessee, the ld. AO did not follow the instruction of CBDT and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that section 143(2) states about issuance of notice by assessing officer and not by ITO or ACIT. It is also stated that no notice u/s 143(2) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 6 months from the end of the F.Y. in which return was furnished. In present case of the assessee, the notice u/s 143(2) had to be served on the assessee on 30.09.2019 by the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. In present case, notice u/s 143(2) was served on 29.07.2023 by the ITO, Ward-42(3), Murshidabad. The scrutiny in the instant case had to be initiated by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within 30.09.2016 for the assessment year in question failing which the selection would have been barred by limitation. Moreover, the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between two Department officers involve procedural formalities guided by internal instructions. The ITO followed the Instruction No. 1/2011 Date 31/1/2011 for the law for protecting the interest of Revenue. He discharged the obligation of an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. The ACIT after having received the case on transfer is not required to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) again, Notice u/s 143(2) unlike notice u/s 142(1) can be issued only once for initiating a scrutiny proceeding within the time limit provided in the Act, and thus the ACIT Murshidabad was not required to issue a notice u/s. 143(2). (g) Reference may kindly be made to the provision of section 124 sub section 3(a) which clearly states that "no object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Supreme Court held that when assessee had participated pursuance to the notice issued u/s 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer as per section 124(3)(a) of the I.T. Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. While going through the present facts of the case and issue involved, we find that assessee has never raised any question before the AO challenging the jurisdiction of AO within 30 days of receipt of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act as well as transfer of jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act. In such circumstances both the grounds taken by the assessee has no merit, therefore, the grounds taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed. 7. Ground no. 3 which relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments furnished by the AR of the assessee. We find that in the instant case dispute is regarding the valuation of impugned sold out units as determined by the AO in terms of value determined by the stamp duty authority. However, when the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the DVO's report as available with him while passing the impugned order, we feel it necessary to remand back the instant issue to the file of AO with the direction to reconsider the valuation report furnished by DVO by applying proposition of law as laid down in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs ITO (supra) and also considering the documents as well as necessary submission made by the assessee before him and it is also directed that while d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
