9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1071 - AT - Income TaxLack of jurisdiction of AO in issuing notice u/s.143 (2) - Change of residential address of the assessee - case was transferred to the office of Ward-1 (4), Gurgaon from ITO, Ward- 58 (2), New Delhi - Admission of Additional Grounds - as per assessee change of residential address of the assessee from Delhi to Gurgaon is of the knowledge of the AO, thus the ITO Ward-58(2) doesn t have the power to issue notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT - We are of the considered opinion that the notice issued u/s 143 (2) of the Act by an under the signature of the Ward- 58 (2), Delhi is found to have suffered from lack of jurisdiction, bad in law, having regard to the residence of the assessee lying and situated at Gurgaon in the state Haryana and thus, the same is hereby quashed. As the very basis and /or foundation of the assessment proceeding being the issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) is non est in the eyes of law, the consequential assessment order dated 22.12.2017 is found to have no legs to stand on and thus, accordingly, quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the subsequent assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16. Jurisdictional Issue: The appellant raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the notice u/s. 143(2) issued by the Assessing Officer, claiming lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the notice was issued by the wrong AO, and the subsequent assessment order should be quashed on this basis. The appellant contended that the change of residential address from Delhi to Gurgaon was known to the AO, and thus, the notice issued by the Delhi AO was invalid. The appellant emphasized that the Gurgaon AO should have issued the notice u/s. 143(2) once the case was transferred to their office. Adjudication by ITAT: The ITAT admitted the additional ground raised by the appellant, citing the importance of the issue related to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Referring to relevant legal precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ITAT deemed it necessary to address this jurisdictional issue at the outset. The ITAT observed that the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 28.07.2016 was issued by the Delhi AO, despite the appellant's residence being in Gurgaon. As per the CBDT circular, the jurisdictional AO is required to issue such notices based on the assessee's place of residence, which in this case should have been the Gurgaon AO. Conclusion and Decision: After considering the arguments and facts presented by both parties, the ITAT concluded that the notice issued by the Delhi AO lacked jurisdiction and was therefore invalid. Consequently, the assessment order based on this flawed notice was deemed to have no legal standing and was quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed in light of this jurisdictional issue. The ITAT's decision was pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2024.
|
