9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining the addition of Rs. 4,35,42,600 on the count of 'unsecured loans' treating it as unexplained cash credits u/s 68, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,29,720 on the count of interest on unsecured loans, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,68,00,000 on the count of 'sale proceeds of immovable property sold on 4-11-20, treating it as undisclosed business receipts, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 made by the ld. AO on account of ad hoc basis, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case, as described by the Ld. CIT(A), are extracted as under: 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm derives income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions made by the Ld. AO under various heads (supra). 5. Being dissatisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before this tribunal which is under consideration in the present case. 6. At the threshold of the hearing, it is informed that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation being filed with a delay of 151 days. Regarding this defect Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (in short "Ld. AR"), submitted that the present appeal was filed with a delay of 151 days for the reason that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was never physically served on the assessee, whereas in appeal memo in Form No. 35, manually filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority, the option regarding "whether notices / communication may be sent on email?" was opted by the assessee as "No" and the address of the assessee was furnished for sending the communications to the assessee. The assessee, therefore, was under Bonafide belief that the communications, such as notices and order by the First Appellate Authority will be served upon the assessee in the physical mode but the same had not happened. It was the submission that as so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;date of receiving the appellate order', however, no appellate order for AY11-12 in physical form has been received by the assessee-firm; it may kindly be considered & obliged. Yours faithfully, Sunil Kumar Agrawal (counsel for the assessee-firm) 7. Backed by aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that the delay involved in the present case was on account of Bonafide reasons beyond the control of assessee without any mala fide intention therefore, the same may kindly be condoned and the matter of assessee may be heard on the issues raised therein. 8. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR objected to the aforesaid contentions raised by the Ld. AR and submitted that the delay involved in present case is inordinate, therefore, the appeal of assessee needs to be dismissed on this count itself. 9. After a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the rival parties. On perusal of the material on record, we find that the present appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) under pre faceless regime on 10.03.2014, which, thereafter, was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre, CBDT. It is evident from Form No. 35 filed by the assessee for appeal before the Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tating that in absence of separate order passed u/s 120(4)(b) authorizing the additional CIT to perform the functions and exercised the powers of an Ld. AO u/s 2(7A) and also in absence of an order u/s 127 by the competent authority transferring the case from ACIT-1(1) to Addl. CIT, Range-1, the assessment order passed by Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur u/s 144 dated 03.02.2014 for the AY 2011-12 is without having a valid assumption of jurisdiction for framing the assessment, is invalid, void ab initio, and is liable to be quashed. 12. On the aforesaid contention by the Ld. AR, the revenue was directed to rebut, in response Ld. CIT-DR has sought time to carry out verification of records of the Pr. CIT-1, Raipur, to check that whether any order u/s 120(4)(b) of the Act to confer the jurisdiction to Addl. CIT, Range-1 to frame assessment in the present case was passed or not. In next hearing Ld. CIT(A) further sought some time to obtain a report from the concerned AO on the issue of jurisdiction. Time and again, the issue was discussed during the hearing and time was granted to the revenue on their request to furnish the necessary information in order to satisfy the mandate of law. Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the then Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur. To make, further arguments and to support the stand of the Revenue, a copy of Order U/s 120(4)(b)/127 of the Act, if any, is required." In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention here that vide this office report dated 03.06.2024, it has already been submitted that "As per the CBDT's Instruction No.6/2009 [F. No. 22/11/2006/IT/(A-II)] dated 18/12/2009, the Range Head was entrusted the work of making assessments to reduce the gap between workload and disposal of assessment. Thus, in view of the above instruction, the Range Head passed the assessment order in the current case and for this reason, no order w/s 120(4)(b) and order w/s 127 of the Act needs to be passed in this case." 5. However, I have gone through all the facts and circumstances involved in this case and observed that the assessee has incorrectly raised the grounds on requirement of order u/s 120(4)(b) / u/s 127 of the Act in this case which is discussed in details as under :- (1) Requirement of order u/s 127 is not applicable in this case As discussed in para 4 above, in this case, initially the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue of order u/s 127 / 120(4)(b) of the Act needs to be rejected. Submitted for kind perusal and needful. Yours faithfully, Encl. as above (Rahul Mishra) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) 5.0 During the appellate proceedings. following hearing notices u/s 250 of the IT Act were issued: a) Hearing notice dated 15.01.2021 fixing hearing on 01.02.2021 b) Hearing notice dated 07.07.2021. fixing hearing on 22.07.2021 c) Hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 fixing hearing on 20.12.2021 d) Hearing notice dated 10.01.2022 fixing hearing on 25.01.2022 e) Hearing notice dated 02.03.2022 fixing hearing on 17.03.2022 f) Hearing notice dated 11.07.2023 fixing hearing on 26.07.2023 Further, the submission of the assessee cannot be entertained for the facts that as per the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. The provisions contained in the said rule are pari materia with the Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which also does not allow the party to the appeal to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the letter could not be considered an additional evidence. Additional evidence can be presented by the assessee on the grounds that-whether it was refused by the AO/CIT(A) at the time of proceedings before them or the assessee was prevented from presenting the same. This is not the case in the current scenario. The assessee himself escaped from presenting the facts before the AO/CIT(A). GROUND NO-1: "Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act" REBUTTAL : After the selection of case for scrutiny assessment through CASS, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 01/08/2012 by ACIT-1(1), Raipur which was duly served upon the assessee through registered post on 06/08/2012 fixing the case for 21/08/2012. This fact is also mentioned in the very first page of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act dated 03/02/2014. GROUND NO-1: "Order u/s 120(4)(b) and Order u/s 127 of the Act" REBUTTAL: As per the CBDT's Instruction No 6/2009 [F. No. 22/11/2006/IT/(A-II)], dated 18/12/2009, the Range Head was entrusted the work of making assessments to reduce the gap between workload and disposal of assessment. Copy enclosed. Thus, in view of the above instruction, the Range Head passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should normally include cases taken up for scrutiny with the permission of CCIT. The selection should be done jointly by the Range Head and the concerned Assessing Officer. Cases of PSUs and loss-making concerns should normally not be identified for this purpose. This exercise should also include those Ranges which are held as additional charge by a Range Head in January. (ii) The Range Head would issue directions u/s 144A in the identified cases for the guidance of the Assessing Officer regarding the course of investigation to enable him to complete these assessments in a proper manner. This should be done at the earliest available opportunity so as to allow the Assessing Officer to have sufficient time to complete the assessment proceedings. A copy of the directions issued by the Range Head would also be endorsed to the CIT. The Range Head should also monitor the subsequent developments in the assessment proceedings in these cases. (iii) On completion of the assessment the Assessing Officer shall send a copy of the assessment order to the Range Head and the CIT, (iv) In the event of a Range Head holding more than one Range the concerned CCIT may appropriately relax the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions may be reported to the Board in monthly D.O. letters. These can be also be sent to DIT (RSP&PR) for inclusion in the Annual Report of good assessment cases. 3. These instructions may please be brought to the notice of all officers working in your Cadre Control region immediately for proper compliance. Proformae Performance Ranking of Assessing Officers CCIT CIT RANGE NAME OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO. OF ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED NO. OF QUALITY ASSESSMENTS OUT OF 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Performance Rankings for Range Heads as Guides CCIT CIT RANGE NAME OF THE ADDL./ JOINT CIT NO. OF CASES IN WHICH GUIDANCE GIVEN U/S 144A NO. OF QUALITY ASSESSMENTS OUT OF 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 MANAGEMENT OF SCRUTINY WORKLOAD Kindly refer to above 2. Considering the increasing gap between workload and disposal of scrutiny assessments, it has been decided to entrust the Range Heads with the responsibility of making assessments in top revenue potential cases of the Range to be selected on the basis of returned Income. 3. In this regard, targets for disposal of cases by the Range Heads are prescribed as under: - S. No. Charge Minimum number of cases to be disposed of per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings by way of a writ petition or otherwise. If no such challenge is made at the initial stage, the issue cannot be raised in an appeal against the Assessment order. With such assertion, it was the prayer by Ld. CIT-DR that the Addl. Ground raised by the Ld. AR needs to be rejected. 15. In rebuttal, to the aforesaid contentions raised by the Ld. AO stating the reasons for inapplicability of any order u/s 120(4)(b) of the Act in the present case, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions as under: Jindal Power Ltd (2024) (Raipur-Trib) dt. 25-6-24 ITA No.201/RPR/2017 Tata Steel Ltd (2024) (Mum-Trib) dt. 7-6-24 163 taxmann.com 345 Tata International Ltd (2023) (Mum-Trib) dt.24-3-23 ITA No.1605/Mum/2012 Vertiv Energy (P) Ltd (2023) (Mum-Trib) dt.2-6-22 (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 412 Nasir Ali (2020) (Del-Trib) dt. 25-9-19 113 taxmann.com 515 16. He further in his written synopsis dated 01.11.2024, submitted as under: 1.2. since the Addl. CIT is not the AQ of the assessee for making assessment u/s 143(3)/144/147 for AY 11-12 within the meaning of sec 2(7A) i.e., sec 2(7A) has been inserted from 1-4-88 in the Statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout authority of law and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction- Bansilal B Raisoni & Sons (2019) (Bom HC) (Para 7); 1.6. the contention of the Deptt that where the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction within the time prescribed u/s124(3), then, having waived its said right, it was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction after having participated in the assessment proceedings, it is held that the waiver can only be of one's right/ privilege but non-exercise of the same will not bestow jurisdiction on a person who inherently lacks jurisdiction; therefore, the principle of waiver cannot be invoked so as to confer jurisdiction on an Officer who is acting under the Act when he does not have jurisdiction- Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) (Bom HC) (Para 18 & 19); 1.7. conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court; if the court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause; an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution; the finding of a court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dt.5-5-15 GP Infraventures (2024) (Raipur-Trib) dt.23-11-23 166 taxmann.com 723 Shri Bangalore Narayan Das (2023) (Bang-Trib) dt.17-3-23 157 taxmann.com 605 KA Wires Ltd (2020) (Kol-Trib) dt.22-1-20 ITA No.1149/Kol/2019 Dr Hari Singh Chandel (2024) (Raipur-Trib) dt.17-10-22 166 taxmann.com 353 Balaji Enterprise (2021) (Gau-Trib) dt.13-11-20 124 taxmann.com 78 OSL Developers P Ltd (2021) (Kol-Trib) dt.3-12-20 125 taxmann.com 98 Nasir Alj (2020) (Del-Trib) dt.25-9-19 113 taxmann.com 515 Yours faithfully CA Sunil Kumar Agrawal Counsel for the assessee-firm 17. Backed by aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that in absence of an order u/s 120(4)(b), the Addl. CIT, Range-1, was not conferred with the assumption of jurisdiction to frame the assessment in the case of the assessee firm in the present case, therefore, the assessment order passed in the present case was void ab initio and at nullity. 18. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record inter alia reports by the Ld. AO and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. AR. Admittedly, as stated by the revenue through the reports of Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been passed. Ostensibly, the Notification No.03/2006 dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur dated 13.10.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by the CBDT u/s. 120 of the Act, i.e. Notification No.223 dated 31.07.2001 in SO No.732(E) and F. No.137/5/2001-ITA(I) is in a different context. As per the Notification No.03/2006, dated 13.10.2006, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur in exercise of powers conferred upon him by the CBDT u/s. 120 of the Act, had authorized the Additional Commissioners of Income Tax/Jt. Commissioners of Income Tax to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by the A. Os who were sub-ordinate to them. Accordingly, it was pursuant to the aforesaid authorization the Addl. Commissioners/Jt. Commissioners had carried out restructuring of the jurisdiction of the authorities' sub-ordinate to them, i.e. DCIT/ACIT/ITO in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases. Accordingly, the Notification No.03/2006 dated 13.010.2006 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur in exercise of powers confe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act;" (emphasis supplied by us) On a careful perusal of the aforesaid definition of the term "Assessing Officer" we find that the same, inter alia, takes within its sweep an Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director who is directed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 120 of the Act to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. As observed by us hereinabove though the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, inter alia, can exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to the A.O under this A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional 162 Commissioner to pass impugned assessment order. We find force in the argument of Lc). Counsel that at the relevant time when the assessment proceedings were in progress, the word 'Additional Commissioner' was not available m the aforesaid section and therefore, it was not possible for the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner to have authorized an Additional Commissioner for exercising powers and functions of an Assessing Officer for a particular assessee or classes of assessee. Even otherwise, no order could be shown to us, whereby any such authority was given to the Joint Commissioner of the Range. Under these circumstances, we find that the Revenue is not able to show any order or notification in favour of the Additional Commissioner authorizing him for performing the powers and functions of the Assessing Officer of the assessee. 3.27. During the course of hearing, Ld. CIT-DR had drawn our attention upon Board's Notification No.267/2001 dated 1.7-9-2001, Notification No.228/2001 dated 31.7.2001 and Notification No,335/2001 dated 29-102001 with a view to argue that the jurisdiction was assigned to all the officers including 'Additional Commissioner&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section (4) of section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions concerned on or assigned to an Assessing Officer; meaning thereby that the Addl. CIT can function or can exercise the powers and perform the functions of an Assessing Officer if he is empowered by the CBDT as required under clause (h) of sub-section (4) of section 120. .... 18.1 So far as the issue before us in the present appeal is concerned, it is now clear from the provisions as discussed hereinbefore that the Additional CIT could act and exercise the powers of an AO only in consequence upon delegation of such authority by the Board, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax as envisaged in the provisions of section 120(4)(b) of the Act, However, the power given to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax being in consequence upon the delegation of power duly authorized by the Legislature, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax were duly bound, if at all they were to exercise such delegated power to act according to the provisions of law; meaning thereby that it was incumbent upon the Chief Commissioner of Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .com 373, and ITAT, Lucknow in the case of Mircrofin Security (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2005) 3 SOT 302. Also, we find that the ITAT, Delhi in the case Shri Nasir Ali Vs. Addl. CIT, ITA No.1285/Del/2018 dated 25.09.2019, had observed that where the Addl. CIT had passed the assessment order, however, no order conferring concurrent jurisdiction to the Addl. CIT over the cases of the Income Tax Officers was available, the assessment so framed being without jurisdiction was void-ab- initio. Also, a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Harvinder Singh Jaggi Vs. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 869. We may herein observe that the ITAT, 'K' Bench, Mumbai in the case of The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT/Dy.CIT (OSD), Range-2(2), ITA No. 8570/Mum/2011, ITA No.565/Mum/2013, ITA No.2049/Mum/2014 and ITA No.1910/Mum/2014, dated 21.05.2021, had observed, that as the Addl. CIT, Range-2(2), Mumbai had failed to establish that he possessed the legal and valid powers of performing the functions of an A.O conferred on him u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act, therefore, assessment so framed by him being devoid and bereft of any force of law was liable to be quashed. Once again, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Id. CIT in pursuance with the notification No.251/2001 also did not confer any jurisdiction to the CIT, Hisar. (3) In addition, no order has been issued by the Ld. CIT transferring the case from one AO to other AO u/s 127 is also wanting in the instant case. 37. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that JCIT, Hisar Range, do not have jurisdiction over the case of assessee and since he did not assume the jurisdiction legally and validly, therefore, the Impugned assessment order framed by him is vitiated and illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the authorities below and quash the impugned order." 27. We shall now deal with the contention of the Ld. DR that as the assessee company had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Bilaspur within the specified time period contemplated under sub section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, i.e. within a period of one month from the date on which it was served with the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, it was divested of its right from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 28. Befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 143. In sum and substance, the obligation cast upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub- section (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where the assessee objects to the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the A.O, and not otherwise. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz Vs. CIT, Tax Appeal Nos. 19 to 30 of 2017, dated 05.04.2021 and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh D Patel (2014) 362 ITR492 (Guj.). In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble High Courts have held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 which places an embargo on an assessee to raise an objection as regards the validity of the jurisdiction of an A.O would get triggered only in a case where the dispute of the assessee is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction and would have no relevance in so far his inherent jurisdiction for framing the assessment is concerned. Also, supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion within the time prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, then, having waived its said right, it was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction after having participated in the assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court had observed that the waiver can only be of one's right/privilege but non-exercise of the same will not bestow jurisdiction on a person who inherently lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, the principle of waiver cannot be invoked so as to confer jurisdiction on an Officer who is acting under the Act when he does not have jurisdiction. The Hon'ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, 2012 (4) SCC 307. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that it is the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that if the court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, which as observed by us hereinabove, is in context of the territorial jurisdiction of the A.O. Apart from that, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (supra), as the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Bilaspur in absence of any order in writing u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment vide his impugned order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 01.03.2013, therefore, the assessee company remained well within its right to challenge the absence of his inherent jurisdiction to frame the impugned assessment in the course of the proceedings before us. 32. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, quash the order passed by the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Bilaspur u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 01.03.2013 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 33. As we have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and dealing with the contentions raised by the assessee company qua the merits of the case which, thus, are left open. 34. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.201/RPR/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) dehors an order u/s 120(4)(b) by the competent authority is held to be against the mandate of law, as decided in the case of Jindal Power Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supra). Having similar facts and circumstances in the present case, we are of the conviction that the issue in present case is squarely covered by the view adopted by this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Power Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supra), which the revenue was unable to distinguish by furnishing any contrary material, evidence or decision. Further, admittedly there was no order for transferring the jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act issued in the present case, therefore, on that count also the impugned assessment cannot survive. Consequently, in absence of inherent jurisdiction with the Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur, to exercise the duties of an Assessing Officer to frame the impugned assessment, the assessment framed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 03.02.2014 is liable to be quashed and we direct to do so. 22. As we have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO in the present case, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we, therefore, refrain from deliberating upon and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
