9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment - scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) was issued by JCIT , Range-37, Kolkata - HELD THAT:- We find that in this case the jurisdiction of assessee was with JCIT, Austinabad, Port Blair whereas the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by JCIT, Range-37, Kolkata. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee has been filing the returns of income in Port Blair right from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and even the communications to the assessee by ACIT CPC Bangluru has been addressed at Port Blair address meaning thereby that even in the PAN data, the address of the assessee has been changed. We note that the assessment has been framed by JCIT, Range-37, Kolkata who is not having the jurisdiction over the assessee. The Ld. A.R also placed before us the copy of CBDT circular being No. 228/2001 [(S.O. 732(E)F. No. 187/5/2001-ITA-1] dated 31.07.2001 states that the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal has the jurisdiction over Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Island and Commissioner of Income Tax,-13, Kolkata with Head Quarter Kolkata, West Bengal is neither having the territorial jurisdiction nor pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee. Thus we note that the assessment has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Austinabad, Port Blair and the copies of acknowledgement of the ITRs are placed at page no. 1 to 4. The Ld. A.R also referred to the communication received from the Department and also the intimation issued u/ s 143(1) at Port Blair address mentioning 97/2, Moulana Azad Road, Phoenix Bay, Port Blair, Andaman Nicobar Islands-744101. The Ld. A.R further stated that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143 of the Act but the assessment was framed by Range-37, Kolkata in respect of Port Blair in spite of concerned officer being aware that the assessee was no longer resident of Kolkata. Since the assessee was based in Port Blair, most of the notices were issued at Kolkata address and thus remained unattended. The Ld. A.R stated that thereafter the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata who again passed ex-parte order dated 4.12.2016 u/s 250 in the month of December, 2017. The Ld. A.R submitted that at that point of time, the assessee was seriously ill and suffering very serious ailments and remained hospitalized for a period of approximately 4 years and was advised bed rest thereafter. The Ld. A.R also referred to the medical report of the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mst. Katiji [1987] 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC) . Finally the Ld. A.R prayed that the appeal may be admitted for hearing. 5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand opposed the contentions of the assessee that the period of 2083 days is beyond the control of the assessee. The ld. D.R submitted that it may be true that the assessee may be seriously ill for some time and in the intervening period COVID pandemic has set in . However even thereafter there was a considerable delay in filing the appeal which has not been explained by the assessee. The Ld. D.R also submitted that the assessee is not a small assessee who is not having any knowledge of tax matter and statutory compliances as the assessee has big turnover. The Ld. D.R therefore prayed that the condonation application may kindly be rejected and appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as a tactics to avoid the litigation with the Revenue because such strategy would not give any benefit to the assessee in this type of litigation. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. Issue raised in ground no. 2 as stated above is legal issue dealing the assessment on the ground that the AO has no jurisdiction to frame the assessment. 11. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 11,45,325/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act through CASS . The said return was processed u/s 143(1) on 23.02.2011 and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by JCIT , Range-37, Kolkata and finally the assessment was framed vide order dated 29.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 36,44,839/-. 12. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A). However the appeal was dismissed as ex-parte. 13. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that in this case the jurisdiction of assessee was with JCIT, Aus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
