9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 127 and the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 and assessment giving effect to the same were of undertaken thereafter by the officer of erstwhile jurisdiction. The chronology of events tabulated above, supported by documentary evidences placed on record and well reasoned finding given by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) persuades us unhesitatingly to uphold the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), whereby, the impugned assessment order has been quashed owing to lack of jurisdiction. In respect of reliance placed by the learned CIT (DR) on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Infra-structure Pvt. Ltd.[ 2015 (2) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we note that there is no men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t tenable in law and on facts. (b)The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2.1 The sole issue involved in this appeal is in respect of jurisdiction assumed by the authorities below. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2009. Case was reopened under Section 148 and the assessment was completed under Section 147 read with section 143(3) vide order dated 28.04.2011, determining total income at Rs. 6,890. 4. Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Kolkata passed an order under Section 263 on 25.03.2014. Effect giving order was passed by ITO, Ward 5(3), Kolkata under Section 144/263/147/143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 25.03.2014 Order u/s.163 of IT Act was passed. The above order was passed without jurisdiction as the jurisdiction stood transferred to Delhi charge prior to passing of order u/s 263. Further, the proceedings got abated by virtue of second proviso to set 153A of IT Act. 30.03.2014 Order u/s 153C of IT Act was passed by ACIT, CC-8, Delhi - 02.03.2015 Order u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 of IT Act was passed which is under appeal. This order was passed without cancelling the order u/s153C of IT Act passed by the authority having valid jurisdiction as the proceedings got abated by v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs given by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) in this respect are reproduced as under: 4.3 It is observed that the order u/s 127(2) was passed vide F. No. CIT/Kol- 11/Centralisation/2013-14/7948-56 dated 30.01.2014 by CIT-II, Kolkata transferring the jurisdiction to DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi. Accordingly, the notice u/s 153C r.ws 153A was issued by DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi on 18.02.2014. The order u/s 263 was passed by erstwhile CIT Kolkata on 25.3.2014. The case u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 became pending before the erstwhile AO in Kolkata. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the AD in Kolkata on 28.05.2014 and proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263/147/143(3) were completed by the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata for this assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO's on same case, without any concurrent order of jurisdiction. In the absence of any such order, the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata had assumed jurisdiction without any authority of law to proceed in this case and frame the assessment order after the order u/s 127 had been passed. Further as on the date of pendency of 153C proceedings for AY 2009-10, the reopened proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 for AY 2009-10 became pending before the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata. These proceedings should have been transferred to DC, CC-8, New Delhi, who had jurisdiction over the case as per the explanation to section 127 reproduced above. Thus the assessment order passed u/s 144/263/147/143(3) on 2.3.2015, by the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata is without any valid ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the hurdle placed in section 124(1) which in turn refers to section 120(1) and (2) of the Act. According to him, the Assessing Officer has to be first vested with appropriate jurisdiction in terms of section 120(1) and (2) which is not so in the present case. Since an order under Section 127 had already been passed on 30.01.2014 transferring the jurisdiction from Kolkata to New Delhi, learned Assessing Officer in the present case was divested of the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. According to him, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent even though the assessee participated in the impugned assessment proceedings. He also pointed out to a fact that the same incumbent officer had passed the order under Section 127 transferri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
