9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1201 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction of AO for service of notice u/s 143(2) - Difference in address as per PAN records and Income Tax Return (ITR) - HELD THAT - As per jurisdiction chart of Income Tax Department in Delhi, extracted from the website of Income Tax Department, the jurisdiction of assessee as per his address in PAN application is with Assessing Officer Ward 39(1). The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, as per the address mentioned in the return of income is with Assessing Officer Circle No.47(1) who has passed the assessment order. The notice issued u/s 143(2) has been issued by the Assessing Officer Circle 34(1) who is neither the Assessing Officer of assessee on the basis of address in PAN application nor is the Assessing Officer of assessee as per address mentioned in the returns of income. Further, even if presumed to be by jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not been served properly since the address mentioned in the notice and address as per tracking report is different and moreover there is discrepancy in the name of the assessee. Therefore, on this ground also the assessee succeeds as in this case also the service of notice was not proper.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 3. Validity of the assessment order in the absence of a proper notice. 4. Transfer of jurisdiction without an order under section 127 of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary contention by the assessee was that no notice under section 143(2) was served within the stipulated time. The assessee had objected to the assessment proceedings on these grounds and filed an affidavit claiming non-receipt of the notice. The Assessing Officer (AO) claimed the notice was issued and served via speed post, with the address being B-37, Maharana Pratap Enclave, Pitampura Delhi-110034. However, discrepancies were noted in the postal tracking report, which indicated delivery to a different address (Pin Code 110006) and to an individual named Ranjeev Goel, not Rajeev Goel. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer: The assessee argued that the notice was issued by AO Circle 34(1), who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. The official address for the assessee’s jurisdiction was 1705, 3rd Floor, Onkar Bhawan, Bhagirath Place, Delhi-110006, which fell under Circle 47(1). The AO of Circle 34(1) was neither the jurisdictional AO based on the PAN address nor the address mentioned in the return of income. The Tribunal found that the AO Circle 34(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee, making the notice illegal. 3. Validity of the assessment order in the absence of a proper notice: The Tribunal referenced several case laws, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon, which held that an assessment order without service of notice under section 143(2) is null and void. The Tribunal also noted that section 292BB could not cure the defect of non-service of notice, especially since the assessee had objected during the assessment proceedings. 4. Transfer of jurisdiction without an order under section 127 of the Act: The assessee contended that there was no order under section 127 for transferring the case between different AOs, which was mandatory since Circle 34 and Circle 47 were under different Chief Commissioners. The Tribunal agreed, noting that no such order was produced, thus violating the provisions of section 127. The Tribunal cited precedents where the absence of an order under section 127 rendered the assessment order void ab initio. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the notice issued by AO Circle 34(1) was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction and improper service. Consequently, the assessment order was invalid. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, and the merits of the case were not adjudicated due to the decision on the legal ground. Order Pronounced: The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2019.
|
