TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has raised an additional ground challenging Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction as per CBDT's notification No.50 of 2014 w.e.f. 15.11.2014 defining jurisdiction as per the postal PIN. Mr. Surana next invited my attention to the assessee's return dated 14.09.2014 filed at Surat whereas the Assessing Officer in Kolkata has framed the impugned assessment. The Revenue's case on the other hand is that the assessee is a stopped from challenging territorial jurisdiction at this belated stage wherein the lower authorities have framed the same as per law. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. Thereafter Ld. CIT in his order u/s. 263 of the Act observed certain errors in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in the assessment order as detailed as under:- (i) The assessee in the year under consideration has taken loan of Rs.227,94,54,247/- on which interest expense of Rs.23,41,50,202/- was incurred. The interest on such loan was paid @ 10.27% per annum. It was also observed that the assessee has given loan of Rs.164,12,61,365/- on interest @ 10.07% per annum. Thus a difference of 0.19% in the rate of interest was found and therefore the assessee was found bearing more burden of interest expense by Rs. 27,15,7124.00 only. Therefore the income of the assessee was under assessed by Rs.27,15,724/- on account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... written off were not verified by the AO in its order dated 21.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to make the assessment de novo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV, Kolkata erred in arbitrarily initiating the impugned proceeding sunder section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the instant case of the Appellant Company, in respect of the assessment year 2010-11. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-IV, Kolkata had no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, whatsoever, to pass the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-IV, Kolkata failed to appreciate that there is no correlation between interest earned and interest paid and the entire interest paid on borrowings which have been used by the appellant company for its business purposes only is fully allowable under section 36(1)(iii) irrespective of any interest earning. 8. That the appellant craves toad, delete or modify any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing." 4. Ld. AR for the assessee before us filed paper book which is running pages from 1 to 86 and submitted that Ld. CIT has passed the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act without having jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessment under section 143(3) in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 of the paper book. Ld. AR further submitted that Ld. CIT has passed the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 19.01.2016 holding the order of AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue without having jurisdiction over the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the order of AO. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the nature of the business of the assessee is a contractor and its jurisdiction as per the notification lies with the existing Ld. CIT-IV Kolkata. Therefore the arguments placed by Ld. AR regarding that the jurisdiction of the assessee depends upon the Pin Code is not acceptable. The ld. DR vehemently relied on the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e eyes of law in the case of Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (20116) 383 ITR 546 (Cal) and the relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- "The admitted position is that a notice under section 143(2) by the transfereeAssessing Officer was issued upon the assessee on 18-3-2013. The jurisdiction over the subject matter has to be conferred by law. The jurisdiction in the instant case had been transferred by the order dated 3-9-2012 by no other than the Commissioner, Kolkata-II himself. Once that was done, the Commissioner, Kolkata-II lost the seisin over the matter. He became 'functus officio'. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of SBI v. S.N. Goyal [2009] 8 ....