9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the PAN the jurisdiction was with ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga. When ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 25.8.2010, the Assessee submitted that ITO, Ward-3, Davangere had jurisdiction over the Assessee. Thereafter the Assessee in reply to the notices u/s.142(1) of the Act took a plea that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act ought to have been issued by ITO, Ward-3, Davangere and since the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 25.8.2010 was issued by the ITO, Ward-2, Shimoga, the ITO, Ward-3, Davangere cannot frame an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. It is for the first time in his letter dated 3.12.2011 that the Assessee took a stand that there has to be an order u/s.127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga to ITO, Ward-3, Davangere. Assessment was getting time barred on 31.12.2011. The Assessee thus acquiesced to the action of the AO at Davangere in framing assessment for AY 2009-10. The Assessee never took a stand that the AO at Davangere had no jurisdiction. The Assessee cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same breath. I am of the view that the AO at Davangere had jurisdiction and he validly assumed jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(2) of the Act is required to be issued prior to framing an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. By letter dated 26.8.2011, the AO informed the Assessee that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 25.8.2010 was already issued by the ITO, Ward-2, Shimoga and called upon the Assessee to comply with the requirements mentioned in notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 25.7.2011 and that if the Assessee fails to do so, the assessment will be completed u/s.144 of the Act ex parte to the best of AO s judgment. To this notice, the Assessee again sent a letter dated 5.9.2011 taking a stand that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward-2, Shimoga was not valid because he was not a predecessor AO of the Assessee and that the return of income had not been filed before him by the Assessee. The AO in reply to the letter dated 5.9.2011 of the Assessee informed the Assessee by his letter dated 25.11.2011 that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward-2, Shimoga dated 25.8.2010 was valid in law and that the objection of the Assessee in this regard was untenable. To this notice the Assessee by reply dated 1.12.2011 and 3.12.2011 informed the AO that the AO i.e., ITO, Ward-3, Davan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. Workers Salary ₹ 1,72,800/- ii. Electricity Charges ₹ 29,769/- iii. Telephone Mobile Charges ₹ 30,475/- iv. Generator Diesel Maintenance ₹ 1,28,822/- v. News paper charges ₹ 1,279/- vi. Shop Expenses ₹ 13,850/- vii. Printing Stationery Charges ₹ 4,046/- viii. Travelling Expenses ₹ 30,500/- ix. Vehicle Maintenance ₹ 12,550/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As discussed in para 7 of letter dated 22.12.2011 7,56,440 18,74,237 Total Income assessed 21,70,917 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) reiterating contentions as were put forth before AO. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO observing as follows:- 4. The facts of the case are being reproduced for brevity. The appellant was regularly riling his Return of Income with PAN AQJPK3729P with ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga. For the Asst.Year 2009-10, the appellant suo moto had decided to file the Return of Income with ITO, Ward-3, Davangere on 05/10/2009 vide Ack.No.0103007689. The Return of Income was selected under CASS and since the PAN was lying with the ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga, the AO had issued the notice u/s 143(2). The appellant is questioning the Jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga to issue this notice. This ground is not germane to the appeal. Yet the same 1s discussed only to reveal th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make the addition as proposed. Before me also, no details have been produced except stating that it is wrong. There is no case for substituting the AO's best Judgement with mine. Therefore, this ground is also dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee and the learned DR. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessment order is barred by limitation u/s.153(1)(b) of the Act. The said provisions reads as follows:- 7. Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of- ( a ) two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable ; or ( b ) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e being an order by the Chief Commissioner, under Sec.127 of the Act, which was held to be a mandatory requirement. On that ground the order of assessment was held to be illegal. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee that the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee s case and therefore following the said decision, the order of assessment in the present case should be annulled as illegal and void. 11. I have given a very careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Assessee and I am of the view that the facts of the case of the Assessee are different and the decision of the Hon ble Delhi Bench cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee will not be applicable. In that case the AO at Agra on his own transferred the case to AO, New Delhi and therefore the Tribunal held that the AO cannot suo motu transfer the file. Admittedly, in the present case the Assessee on his own filed return of income before the ITO, Ward-3, Davangere, even though as per the PAN the jurisdiction was with ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga. When ITO, Ward-2, Shivamogga issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
