9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee renders the assessment proceedings as a nullity. However, the case of the assessee before us is on a much stronger footing because leaving aside the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, even the final assessment order has been framed by the Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee. We allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and hold that the assessment order framed in the case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 dt. 26/03/2016 is without jurisdiction and is a nullity and is hereby quashed as the AO framing the said assessment did not have jurisdiction over the assessee as mandated in the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 - Decided in favour of assessee. - Dr. Manish Borad, Hon ble Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon ble Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R For the Revenue : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The above captioned appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under consideration, assessee company has received share capital and share premium. He asked the assessee to explain the nature and source of alleged share capital and share premium. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions and completed the assessment making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Assessment has been framed by the ACIT, Circle-38, Midnapore. 4.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising various grounds but failed to succeed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We first take up the additional ground of appeal wherein it has been contended that the ld. ACIT who had completed the assessment was not having jurisdiction and, therefore, the assessment order is a nullity and deserves to be quashed. Thus, the additional ground which goes to the root of the matter has been raised and in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India reported in 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal Power Corporation reported in 229 ITR 383, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions and carefully gone through the decisions relied upon by both the sides. 9. Through the additional grounds, assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order in question framed on 26/03/2016 on the ground that the same has been framed by the Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee and is, therefore, a nullity. 10. The claim of the assessee is that in the light of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra), the mandatory limit was revised for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction based on the income declared by the corporate/non-corporate assessee. The assessee being a corporate assessee and located in a mofussil area and the income of the assessee being less than Rs. 20 Lakhs, the jurisdiction for assessing the income of the assessee vested with the Income-tax Officer. However, the assessment order in the case of assessee has been framed by the ACIT, Circle-38, Midnapore. In absence of any specific order u/s 127 of the Act, further giving powers to the prescriber authorities for transferring of the case, prima facie it indicates that the assessment in the case of the assessee ought to have been framed by the Income-tax Officer and not by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd. in ITAT/39/2023 in IA No.GA/1/2023 dated 15.03.2023. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further relied on the decision of the Coordinate C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s J R Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2534/Kol/2019 order dated 27.05.2022. The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: 4. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to show that in the opening lines of the assessment order itself, it has been mentioned that the assessee had shown a total income of Rs. 2,07,18,275/- in the return of income filed on 11.09.2012 for the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that as per the relevant statutory provisions not only the territorial jurisdiction but also the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officers/Assessing Officer has been fixed by the CBDT and that if the returned income is less than Rs. 30 lacs in case of corporate assessee in metro cities, the jurisdiction to frame the assessment lies to the Income Tax Officer whereas if the returned income is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions of ld. representatives of both the parties and gone through the records. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to section 120 of the Act which, for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced as under: Jurisdiction of income- tax authorities (1) Income- tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions Conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of those authorities. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any income-tax authority, being an authority higher in rank, may, if so directed by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income-tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued by the Board shall be deemed to be a direction issued under sub-section (1)]. (2) The directions of the Board under sub- section (1) may authorise any other income- tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to increase the monetary limits as under: Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011. 7. A perusal of the above provisions of law along with the CBDT Instructions would show, in this case, the competent officer to proceed with the assessment by way of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was DCIT/ACIT, whereas, the notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata who did not have any jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid notice. As has been held by the various courts of the country including the Apex Court, the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) by the concerned Assessing Officer of a competent jurisdiction is mandatory to assume jurisdiction to proceed to frame assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The identical issue also came into consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal No.2517/Kol/2019, dated 3-2-2021] wherein the Tribunal further relying upon various othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 29/09/2016, by the Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Durgapur, who had no jurisdiction of the case. He submitted that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Durgapur, who had the jurisdiction over the assessee, but he had not issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Thus, he submits that the assessment is bad in law. 5.1. On merits, he rebutted the findings of the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on certain case-law, which I would be referring to as and when necessary. 6. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, submitted that the concurrent jurisdiction vests with the ITO as well as the ACIT and hence the assessment cannot be annulled simply because the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued by the ITO and the assessment was completed by the ACIT. He further submitted that the assessee did not object to the issue of notice before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and even otherwise, Section 292BB of the Act, comes into play and the assessment cannot be annulled. On merits, he relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turned was above Rs. 15 lacs transferred the case to ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014. iii) On 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle- 27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 50,28,040/-. As per the CBDT Instruction the monetary limits in respect to an assessee who is an individual which falls under the category of 'non corporate returns' the ITO's increased monetary limit was upto Rs. 15 lacs; and if the returned income is above Rs. 15 lacs it was the AC/DC. So, since the returned income by assessee an individual is above Rs. 15 lakh, then the jurisdiction to assess the assessee lies only by AC/DC and not ITO. So, therefore, only the AC/DC had the jurisdiction to assess the assessee. It is settled law that serving of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is a sine qua non for an assessment to be made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In this case, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.09.2013 by ITO, Ward-1, Haldia when he did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction and issue notice. Admittedly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years 1983-84 to 1987-88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Tribunal - Held, yes Whether jurisdiction of Assessing Authority is not dependent on date of accrual of cause of action but on date when it is initiated - Held, yes - Whether once a particular jurisdiction is created, same must be prospective and cannot be retrospective and it has to be interpreted having regard to manner in which it has been sought to be created - Held, yes Assessee 9.3. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC), held as follows:- 7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner. According to Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate, since the Respondent had participated in the proceedings, the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er makes the assessment bad in law. Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal of the assessee. 6. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these orders stated above, we hold that the orders are bad in law for the reason that the assessing authority passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act i.e. DCIT-13(1), Kolkata has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and also for the reason that the jurisdiction of these cases lies with the ITO and not the DCIT. Hence all the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) in these four cases are hereby quashed and the appeals of the assessees are allowed. 8. In view of above discussion made and in the light of the various case laws, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (DCIT) was bad in law for want of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further relied on the decision of the Coordinate SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shivam Finance vs. ACIT in ITA No.422/Kol/2023 vide order dated 21.06.2023, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal relying on the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for commencing the Scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal has noted the facts and rendered a finding that on the date when the case was selected for scrutiny, the authority who issued the notice namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.9 (4), Kolkata did not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction was with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The following factual finding has been recorded by the Tribunal: Therefore, the legal ground stands to be admitted and the same relates to invalid notice issued u/ 143(2) of the Act. It is a settled position of law that for carrying out the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the statutory requirement of serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is must and in absence thereof the subsequent proceedings become invalid. In the case of assessee, the facts are that the assessee has declared income of Rs. 48,47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act as issued by ITA, Ward-9(4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction No.1 /2011 supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment has been framed by ACIT, Circ1e-49, Kolkata but the point in dispute is that on the date of issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, whether the ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata was having a valid jurisdiction to issue such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the recent judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd. (supra) has decided identical issue in favour of the assessee. 9. Thus, from the perusal of the findings given by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and from the examination of facts of the present case, we find that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble High Court is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. We thus, unhesitatingly hold that ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee on the date of issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Revenue has not controverted this fact by placing any other contrary material on record to indicate otherwise. Since a valid notice u/s. 143(2) has not been issued, the assessment proceedings carried thereafter deserves to be quashed. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
