9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use the permission has not been received from the ld. Pr. CIT for transfer of PAN, she cannot proceed and pass the assessment order in absence of requisite jurisdiction at first place which is governed by last known residence address of the deceased assessee as mandated by section 124(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, where there is no dispute that the jurisdiction over the deceased assessee lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur, the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 1(4) cannot be sustained and set-aside for want of requisite jurisdiction. Where there is no dispute that the jurisdiction over the deceased assessee lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur, the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 1(4) cannot be sustained and set-aside for want of requisite jurisdiction. Regarding contention of the ld. DR that the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 124(3) - We find that the assessee has also challenged the service of notice u/s 148 and 142(1) and in any case where the ITO Ward 1(4) herself is clear that the jurisdiction in the case of the decease assessee doesn t lie with her and lies with ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur and has written a letter as e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the same. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. Further the Id. CIT(A) has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case not considering the evidences filed by the assessee before him. 5. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A B C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the ITO Ward 1(4) received certain information from Dy. DIT (Inv.)-II, Jaipur that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold land situated at village Mathuradaspura, Ramgarh Road, Jaipur for consideration of ₹ 53 lacs and assessee has also not filed his return of income. Therefore, income to the extent of ₹ 53,00,000/- has escaped assessment. Notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2015 was thereafter issued to Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera, legal heir of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot take advantage of ignorance of law of assessee. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the above contentions on the wrong footing and has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case. It was accordingly submitted that both the notice u/s 148 and consequent assessment proceedings completed u/s 147 read with 143(3) are beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR referred to the provision of section 124(3) of the Act and it was submitted that the assessee can challenge jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer only within 1 month of the notice issued u/s 148/142(1) of the Act. In the instant case, assessee has raised jurisdiction issue for the first time only on 11.03.2016 whereas notices issued u/s 148 was served upon the appellant on 31.03.2015 through affixture and notice u/s 142(1) on 22.09.2015 served through SHO, Manak Chouk Thana, Badi Choper, Jaipur. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act, the assessee was not entitled to raise the issue of jurisdiction after a long gap and that too near the time barring date of assessment when the notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) of the Act which reads as under: 124. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 , the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area. 8. The answer to the said question is not hard to find and the same has been given by ITO Ward 1(4) where she has admitted that she doesn t have the jurisdiction over the matter and jurisdiction lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur as clear from the letter No. ITO/W-1(4)/JPR/15-16 dated 21.03.2015 written by ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur to the Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur and the contents thereof reads as under:- No./ITO/W-1(4)/JPR/15-16 Dated 21.04.2015 To, The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jaipur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur is also corroborated by the assessment order passed for same assessment year 2008-09 in case of the legal Heir, Shri Subhash Chand Ajmera who happens to share the same residential address as that of the deceased assessee and which is passed by ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur. Therefore, where there is no dispute that the jurisdiction over the deceased assessee lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur, the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 1(4) cannot be sustained and set-aside for want of requisite jurisdiction. 10. Regarding contention of the ld. DR that the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 124(3) of the Act, We find that the assessee has also challenged the service of notice u/s 148 and 142(1) and in any case where the ITO Ward 1(4) herself is clear that the jurisdiction in the case of the decease assessee doesn t lie with her and lies with ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur and has written a letter as earlier as 21.04.2015 to ld. Pr. CIT and there has been no action by the office of ld Pr. CIT till the passing of the assessment order, there is no basis to blame the assessee for filing the late objections as the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
