2017 (10) TMI 927 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order passed by income tax officer, Ward II(3), Gurgaon - transfer of cases - time barred notice under section 143(2) - Held that - As far as time barred notice under section 143(2) is concerned, the person who initiated proceedings under section 143(2) that is ITO 2(1) Ghaziabad himself admitted that jurisdiction lies with ITO Ward II(3) Gurgaon who has ultimately passed the impugned order, then it was must be proved that correct jurisdictional officer, ITO Ward II(3) Gurgaon, timely issued the notice u/s 143(2) which is patently missing on the face of the record. On parity of facts/reasoning above we hold that present assessment framed is void ab initio. As far as transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 is concerned, the mandatory and prior requirement of the law for having the valid order on basis of positive Agreement between two competent authorities, which is admittedly missing in the present facts, as explained in aforesaid Hon ble Supreme Court decision in Norul s case 2016 (10) TMI 982 - SUPREME COURT , the transfer made by one ITO to another ITO operating under different CCIT s, cannot be sustained and accordingly, the resultant assessment order passed is held to be nullity. Thus hold that notice under section 143(2) on 15/05/2013 by ITO Ward II(3) Gurgaon was time barred and transfer made by Ghaziabad ITO to Gurgaon ITO without valid/required order under section 127 is invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Validity of assessment order passed by the income tax officer, Ward II(3), Gurgaon based on the jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) dated 28/08/2012 and 15/05/2013. Admissibility of additional ground raised by the assessee under rule 11 of ITAT rules.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Assessment Order:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the validity of the assessment order passed by the income tax officer, Ward II(3), Gurgaon, based on the jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) dated 28/08/2012 and 15/05/2013. The assessee contended that the notice issued on 15/05/2013 was time-barred as it should have been issued before 30/09/2012, considering the return filing date of 26/07/2011. The assessee also argued that the transfer of jurisdiction from ITO Ward 2(1) Ghaziabad to ITO Ward II(3) Gurgaon lacked a valid order under section 127. The assessee relied on previous decisions to support the claim that the assessment order was invalid due to these jurisdictional issues.

Analysis Outcome:
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee under rule 11 of ITAT rules, considering it a purely legal and jurisdictional issue crucial to the matter. The Tribunal cited recent high court decisions to support the admission of the additional grounds. Upon careful consideration of the facts and arguments presented, the Tribunal found that the notice issued on 15/05/2013 was indeed time-barred and the transfer of jurisdiction lacked a valid order under section 127. Consequently, the assessment order based on these grounds was deemed invalid and quashed.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Additional Ground:
The Revenue objected to the admission of the additional ground raised by the assessee, arguing that proper objections were not raised before the assessing officer under section 124(3). However, the assessee contended that the address mentioned in the return indicated Gurgaon jurisdiction, making the notice issued by Ghaziabad ITO improper. The assessee emphasized the similarity of the present case to previous decisions where assessments were quashed due to similar jurisdictional issues.

Analysis Outcome:
The Tribunal accepted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, emphasizing the legal and jurisdictional nature of the issues raised. By considering the facts and legal precedents cited by the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued on 15/05/2013 was time-barred and the transfer of jurisdiction lacked the required valid order under section 127. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee, rendering other grounds raised on merits irrelevant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after thorough analysis and consideration of the legal and jurisdictional aspects raised by the assessee, allowed the appeal, quashing the assessment order passed by the income tax officer, Ward II(3), Gurgaon. The decision was based on the invalidity of the jurisdictional notice issued and the lack of a valid order for the transfer of jurisdiction, as highlighted by the assessee's additional grounds under rule 11 of ITAT rules.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the validity of the assessment order.