9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us - ITA No. 581/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2019 - SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM For the Assessee : Shri A.K. Singh, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Damle, AR ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by theRevenue,pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata, in Appeal No.649/CIT(A)-18/16-17/Cir-7(1)/Kol dated 25.11.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the ld. Assessing Officeru/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), dated 27.02.2015. 2.The appeal filed for Assessment Year 2012-13, is barred by limitation by 41 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from RKBK Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., he held that all other loans were not genuine and made an addition of ₹ 17,56,50,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 5. Assessment order has been passed by Addl. CIT, Range-7. Assessee filed appeal against the assessment order and thereafter filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court for early hearing of appeal. Hon ble Calcutta High Court passed the order dated 17.09.2015 directing the department for disposal of appeal in a given time frame. 6. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee`s main objections was against validity of assessment order. Main objection in this regard were as under: a) With effect from 15.11.2014, Addl. CIT, Range-7 could not have performed the functions of an A.O. b) On 10.11.2014 there was a video conference and it was decided by CBDT that during the remaining part of that F.Y. no cases would be assigned to the newly created offices of Special Ranges and henceforth there would be no concurrent assessment jurisdiction to range heads. c) Board had not passed order u/s 120(4) authorizing Pr. CCIT / CCIT / CIT to pass any order u/s 120(4)(b), empowering Addl. CIT /Jt. CIT, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and the Deputy Commissioner who is directed under clause (b) of subITA section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act;] ACIT, DCIT, ADIT, DDIT ITO are vested with relevant jurisdiction by sub section (1) or (2) of section 120 and the Addl. CIT is vested with assessment jurisdiction by clause (b) of sub section (a) of section 120. a) Before the Addl./Jt. CIT exercises the powers of an A.O., conditions of section 120(4)(b) are to be fulfilled. b) Assessee is not barred by Principle of estoppels from questioning jurisdiction of the Addl.CIT, Range-7 only because assessee had participated in assessment proceedings. An illegal act committed by an authority can be challenged by an aggrieved party at any stage of the proceedings till they attain finality. Assessee relied on the following judgments / decisions in support of its proposition. i) P V Doshi -vs- ClT, 113 ITR 22 (Gujrat) High Court. ii) Dasamuni Reddy -vs- Apparao [AIR 1974 SC 2089 at 2092 ] (SC) iii) D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax or Commissioners of Income-tax specified in column (2) of the Schedule-I annexed hereto, having their headquarters at the places specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule-I, shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of such cases or classes of cases specified in the corresponding entries in column (6) of the said Schedule-I, of such persons or classes of persons being residents or not ordinarily residents in India as per section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and as specified in the corresponding entries in column (5) of the said Schedule-I, in such territorial areas specified in the corresponding entries in column (4) of the said Schedule-I, in respect of all incomes or classes of income thereof; (b) directs that the Principal Commissioners of Income-tax or Commissioners of Income-tax specified in column (2) of the Schedule-II annexed hereto, having their headquarters at the places specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule-II, shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of any cases or classes of cases, of any persons or classes of persons in respect of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndivided family, place of residence of the Karta; and (c) in the case of a firm or an association of persons or a body of individuals or a local authority and all other artificial juridical persons other than companies, the place where the head office is located. (ii) in cases of companies whose names begin with any of the numerical (hereinafter numeric companies ), the Principal Commissioners of Income-tax or Commissioners of Income-tax who exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of companies whose names begin with the alphabet which is same as that of the first alphabet of the name of the numeric companies in words, shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of those numeric companies. (iii) column (2) of the schedule specifies the designation of Income-tax authorities as Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner of Income-tax . The designation is to be understood as Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax. For example, Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner of Incometax, Ahmedabad-1 refers to an income tax authority, which could either be Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/ s 127 would make any difference. To take care of the cases assessed in the central charges, CBDT had issued another notification no.70 of 2014 dated 13.11.2014. It read as follows: SECTION 120(1) AND (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOMETAX AUTHORITIES - JURISDICTION OF - SUPERSESSION OF NOTIFICATION NO. SO 822(E), DATED 23-8-2001 NOTIFICATION NO. 70/2014 [F. NO. 187/37/2014 (ITA-I)]/SO 2915(E), DATED 13-11-2014 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.822(E), dated the 23rd August, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 23rd August, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby,- (a) directs that the Director General of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax specified in column (2) of the Schedule -1 or II annexed to this notification, as the case may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through separate notifications. Hence even if the case was assigned to Addl. CIT, Range-7 through order u/s 127, he was no longer an A.O for this case w.e.f. 15.11.2014. In remand report Jt. CIT, Range-7mentioned that nobody directed Addl. CIT, Range-7 to transfer back the case to DCIT /ACIT, Circle-7 after 15.11.2014. In this regardld CIT(A) noted that Addl. CIT, Range-7 was involved in passing jurisdiction order for ACIT /DCIT and ITOs under him. As he was involved in the restructuring process and passing of jurisdiction order, he should have known the correct implication of restructuring effective from 15.11.2014. No one else can be faulted for not informing him about the implication of restructuring. In remand report Jt. CIT, Range-7 has mentioned that restructuring was an administrative exercise and order u/s 120(4) passed by CIT was valid even after 15/11/2014. However, this is not correct. Till 14/11/2014, CIT derived powers From S.O. 732(E) dated31/07/2001. However, w.e.f. 15/11/2014, this notification was superseded by S.O. 2752 (E). More importantly, Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT Range was not empowered to act as A.O. w.e.f.15/11/2014. 13. In remand rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
