Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1278 - AT - Income TaxIssues Involved: 1. Validity of the order under Section 250. 2. Jurisdictional issues related to the issuance of notice under Section 143(2). 3. Disallowance of development expenses. 4. Disallowance of stamp and registry expenses. 5. Disallowance of typing expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order under Section 250: The appellant contended that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and on facts. The Tribunal examined the grounds of appeal and found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the various discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the additions made by the AO. 2. Jurisdictional Issues Related to the Issuance of Notice under Section 143(2): The appellant argued that the notice under Section 143(2) dated 17/03/2016 was issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(1), Bilaspur, who was not the jurisdictional AO. The jurisdiction lay with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle 1(1), Bilaspur, as per the notification. The Tribunal noted that the first notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer who did not have the jurisdiction, and no notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including "Mata Road Carriers vs DCIT" and "Durga Manikanta Traders vs ITO," which held that assessments framed based on notices issued by non-jurisdictional officers are void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order for lack of valid jurisdiction. 3. Disallowance of Development Expenses: The AO disallowed development expenses of Rs. 1,16,73,020/- claimed by the assessee, stating that the assessee failed to provide convincing explanations and evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee did not submit any evidence to rebut the AO's findings. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee failed to address the discrepancies pointed out by the AO. 4. Disallowance of Stamp and Registry Expenses: The AO disallowed Rs. 27,65,260/- for stamp expenses and Rs. 4,20,181/- for registry expenses, considering that these expenses were borne by the purchasers of the plots. The CIT(A) upheld these disallowances, stating that the assessee did not furnish evidence of making payments for these expenses. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee failed to provide the necessary evidence. 5. Disallowance of Typing Expenses: The AO disallowed typing expenses of Rs. 88,000/-, considering that the documents were prepared by M/s Shrishti Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, and the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16 due to the invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, who issued the notice under Section 143(2) without having the proper jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal refrained from addressing the other contentions raised by the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment order was declared void.
|