2015 (3) TMI 572 - HC - Income Tax

Vadity of Notice under Section 143(2) - Petitioner filed its return on 14.9.2012. The end of the Financial Year would be 31.3.2013 - Held that - The purported notice dated 10.09.2013 issued under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over the case. This fact was immediately pointed out by the assessee/petitioner by virtue of its letter dated 17.09.2013 where it had clearly indicated that it was regularly filing returns in Delhi and that the jurisdiction of the case was in Delhi. On this basis, it was requested that the said notice issued by the Bangalore office be withdrawn. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1) (1), Bangalore wrote to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3), New Delhi on the subject of transfer of scrutiny assessment records in the case of the petitioner. It is evident from the aforesaid letter that it is only the records of the case which were transferred and if the case itself had been transferred, the same would have to be directed under Section 127 of the said Act. No such order of transfer has been made and the above letter dated 16.12.2014 is indicative of the fact that the Bangalore Office of the Income Tax Department did not have jurisdiction in this case. - The first notice, therefore, which was issued by an Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. This was issued clearly beyond the period of limitation which has been prescribed, i.e., beyond 30.09.2013 in this case. As such, the impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act is barred by time. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdictional issue between Income Tax Officers in Bangalore and New Delhi.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged a notice dated 24.12.2014 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3), New Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13, claiming it was time-barred. The petitioner filed its return on 14.9.2012, and the notice should have been issued by 30.09.2013. The respondent argued that the notice was not time-barred as it was a continuation of an earlier notice from Bangalore. However, the court found the Bangalore notice invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, as the case belonged to New Delhi. The subsequent transfer of records did not confer jurisdiction on Bangalore, making the New Delhi notice on 24.12.2014 the first valid notice.

2. The court highlighted that the letter transferring case records from Bangalore to New Delhi did not constitute a transfer under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, indicating that Bangalore did not have jurisdiction. As a result, the notice issued by Bangalore on 10.09.2013 was without jurisdiction, making the New Delhi notice on 24.12.2014 the first valid notice. Since the 24.12.2014 notice was beyond the prescribed limitation date of 30.09.2013, it was deemed time-barred and quashed. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed.