9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 on 19-12-1983 without making mention of ward of the ITO. The said returns of income were dealt with by the ITO, "C-Ward, Katni" who completed the assessments for the Assessment year 1982-83 on 25-2-1984 and for the Assessment year 1983-84 on 26-7-1984 under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. The ITO, A-Ward, Katni, being unaware of such adventure of the assessee, issued notice under section 142(1) on the basis of the file in which notice under section 139(2) was issued. The notice under section 132(1) was served on 5-3-1986. The assessee by letter dated 10-3-1986 informed the ITO, A-Ward, Katni, that she had already filed the return of income for the Assessment year 1983-84, which was before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pass fresh orders according to law. In the said order, the learned counsel pointed out, the Commissioner observed as under--- " Now, so far as the assessment order passed by the ITO, A-Ward, Katni, is concerned, the same has already been set aside by the CIT(A) because it was patently a wrong order since the assessee had not filed a return of income, where the ITO treated her as one who has filed the return. " 5. Respective submissions of the parties have been minutely considered. The AAC of Income-tax annulled the assessment dated 13-3-1986 framed by the ITO, A-Ward, Katni, on the ground that the assessment for the same year was already framed by the ITO, C-Ward, Katni, on 26-7-1984 but he did not at all consider if the first assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidual notice under sub-section (2) is served. " 7. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the Assessment year 1983-84 were pending before the ITO, A-Ward, Katni, from 10-10-1983 who had jurisdiction in the case of the assessee. It may be said that the ITO, A-Ward, and the ITO, C-Ward, both had concurrent jurisdiction. However, the assessee did not question the jurisdiction of the ITO, A-Ward. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the ITO, A-Ward, the assessee filed return of income on 19-12-1983 and it was taken cognizance of by the ITO, C-Ward, who framed the assessment on 26-7-1984 under section 143(1). This act of the ITO, C-Ward, knowingly or unknowingly was a trench on the jurisdiction of the ITO, A-Ward. Once the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
