9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] wherein, it has been held that the assessment order passed against the non-existent company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to Section 292B. Thus, it is well established that the notice issued by the DCIT Circle 1(1), Bangalore, is without jurisdiction and as such, all further proceedings would render void ab initio. The arguments of the learned counsel for the revenue with respect to Sections 292B and 292BB do not merit any consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.441/2014 c/w I.T.A.No.509/2014, I.T.A.No.510/2014, I.T.A.No.512/2014, I.T.A.No.513/2014, I.T.A.No.514/2014 & I.T.A.No.515/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2021 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.K. CHYTHANYA, ADV.) J U D G M E N T S. SUJATHA, J., ITA No.441/2014 is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) assailing the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in ITA Nos.1634-1639/Bang/2012 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, C Bench, Bengaluru ( Tribunal for short) relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereunder: The following additional substantial question of law shall also be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. H. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notices issued under Section 153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio? 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law H is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014, 513/2014, 514/2014 and 515/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the very same order of the Tribunal and the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial questions of law framed in ITA No.441/2014. 7. Given the circumstances, it would be apt to first address the substantial question of law H as the other substantial questions of law would depend upon the result of this substantial question of law. Hence, first we proceed to consider the substantial question of law H . 8. Assesse is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed consolidated order dated 13.06.2014 by partly allowing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the extent of the order which is prejudicial to the assessee, these appeals are filed. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee would submit that conferring of the jurisdiction on the officer has come to the notice of the assessee only on noticing the date mentioned in the assessment order of Mr. Hisham Syed Tamiz and further got confirmed on the information secured by the assessee to the application made under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as per the letter dated 25.09.2013 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Bengaluru. Hence, this ground though not raised before the authorities, the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax being without jurisdiction, the same renders the further proceedings void ab initio as it goes to the root of the matter. In this regard, catena of judgments are cited by the learned counsel. It was further argued that Sections 292B and 292BB are not applicable to the instant case as Section 292B applies only in case of mistake/defect or omission, whereas Section 292BB deals with service of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uru on 11.05.2009; date of transfer of files from ACIT is 19.08.2009. Thus, it is ex-facie apparent that the notices under Section 153C were issued prior to transfer of case and jurisdiction conferred on the DCIT. It is well settled by now that any order passed without jurisdiction is invalid. 16. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) wherein, it has been held that the assessment order passed against the non-existent company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to Section 292B. 17. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Silver Line reported in (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Delhi), the Hon ble High Court of Delhi considering the objections raised by the revenue inasmuch as ITAT permitting the assessee to raise the point concerning non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for the first time in the appeal before the ITAT, held that it is settled law that the requirement of issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one, it does go to the root of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of jurisdiction as a Assessing Officer over respondent/assessee is the Order dated 6.7.1999 which has been passed u/s.127 of the Act, while issuing notice on 22.9.1999, under Section 158BC of the Act. But, as the Order dt.6.7.1999 under Section 127 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur was set aside before issuing of notice, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur ceased to be the Respondent/Assessee s Assessing Officer. In the result, the notice dated 22.9.1999 issued u/s.158BC of the Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, who was not the Assessing Officer of the respondent/assessee. It is the Assessing Officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. This notice the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax could not issue as, on 22.9.1999, he was not the Assessing Officer. As a consequence, the notice being without jurisdiction, all the proceedings subsequent thereto are without authority of law. This judgment was challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be dismissed. We find no reason to take a different view. 19. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
