9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, but, it did not provide how the case of assessee was transferred from Meerut to Malegaon for the assessment year under appeal. It would, therefore, would not support the case of the Revenue. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above decisions relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Assessee, we hold that the entire assessment order is null and void in the absence of issue and service of jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) by the ITO at Meerut having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the assessment order. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed. - ITA. No. 156/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2021 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Rajkumar Gupta, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri Gurmel Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut, Dated 31.10.2017, for the A.Y. 2014-2015 on the following grounds : 1. That the asstt. order framed by ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and notice under section 143(2) Dated 18.09.2015 was issued by the ITO, Ward-2, Malegaon and the same served upon the assessee through post as well as e-mail ID. Later on the proceedings in case along with the case record was transferred from the ITO, Ward-2, Malegaon to the O/o the ITO, Ward-2(2), Meerut in compliance to the order passed by the Pr. CIT-I, Nasik. The A.O. noted that assessee herself had made a request before the ITO, Ward-2, Malegaon to transfer the case to Meerut. Notice under section 142(1) dated 16.12.2016 was issued for compliance. The A.O. noted that there is a difference as per TDS statement [26AS]. In the absence of explanation of assessee, addition of ₹ 55,700/- was made. The A.O. also noted that in the return assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 1,10,714/- under section 80 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the absence of documentary evidences, A.O. made addition of ₹ 1,10,714/- and completed the assessment under section 143(3) Dated 30.12.2016. 3.1. The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O. at Nasik for issuing notice under section 143(2) and claimed that since no notice under section 143(2) have been issued by the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. PB-3 is objection filed by assessee before ITO, Ward-2, Malegaon (Nasik) under section 124(3) intimating that assessee has no connection at Malegaon (Nasik) and the jurisdiction for the case of assessee lies at Meerut, therefore, notice Dated 18.09.2015 should be dropped. PB-4 is another notice Dated 12.07.2016 under section 142(1) by ITO, Ward-2, Malegaon (Nasik) which is replied by assessee on Dated 16.07.2016 [PB-5] intimating the same fact that jurisdiction of the A.O. lies to Meerut. PB-6 is another notice under section 142(1) Dated 02.12.2016 by ITO, Ward-2, Malegaon (Nasik) which is replied by assessee on Dated 07.12.2016 [PB-7] intimating the jurisdiction and other details before A.O. PB-9 is notice under section 142(1) Dated 16.12.2016 of ITO, Ward-2(5), Meerut. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that assessee raised objections at Malegaon that ITO at Malegaon has no jurisdiction over the matter which was ultimately accepted and the case of assessee is transferred to Meerut. However, no opportunity have been given while passing the Order under section 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is not clarified as to how the case of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2018 on the same facts quashed the assessment order as no jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) have been issued by jurisdictional ITO, Meerut [PB-1 to 16]. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate upon this issue, therefore, it may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). He has submitted that PAN of assessee was at Nasik and filed copy of the jurisdiction history details in the case of the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since it is a legal issue and all facts are arising from record, therefore, we propose to decide the issue of jurisdiction and as such there is no need to remand back the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as is argued by the Ld. D.R. It is not in dispute that assessee filed return of income with Range-2, Meerut [PB-1] for assessment year in appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed on record copy of the acknowledgment of filing of the return of income for preceding A.Ys. 2011- 2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 with Range-2, Meerut in the name of the assessee. It would, therefore, show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
