9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR is wrong in as much as section 124(3) of the Act talks only about territorial jurisdiction, whereas the issue involved here is pecuniary jurisdiction. Provisions of section 124(3) of the Act could be taken shelter by the Revenue only when legal valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the Revenue. In the instant case, notice issued u/s 143(2) on 12.04.2016 by ITO is not legal as he did not possess jurisdiction over the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 in as much as the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra by the decision of Ashok Devichand Jain [ 2022 (3) TMI 1466 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held where income declared/returned by any Non-Corporate ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Modi Ms. Prarthna Modi, Director of the Appellant company. It was not appreciated that the Directors played a very important role in running the day to day business of the Appellant. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 36,46,215/- Rs. 3,60,591/- towards hotel, boarding lodging and conveyance expenses, without appreciating that expenditure was incurred to run the day to day business of the Appellant. 2.1 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that expenditure incurred was to promote the business interest of the Appellant and was in line with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned asstt. is without jurisdiction and illegal. Additional G.No.3 That under the facts and circumstances, the enhancement of 10. Rs. 21,73,500/- made for depreciation on computers Rs. 21,73,500/- and for disallowance of interest expenditure Rs. 4,70,475/-, do not arise out of the impugned asstt. proceedings, hence outside the scope of enhancement by CIT(A) u/s. 251(1)(a) r.w.s. 251(2) of the I.T. Act. 2. That the issues raised are the pure legal issues which goes to the root of the matter and all facts and material required for the these grounds are already available on record. 3. That such legal issues where facts exists on record and which issues goes to the root of the matter can be taken as additional grounds at any stage of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011 is hereby reproduced:- SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961-INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES- INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1)), DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2016 by DCIT, Circle 27(2), New Delhi. Hence, it was argued that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 issued by the ITO selecting the return of assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 for scrutiny is without jurisdiction and consequently, the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2017 required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on receipt of the notice. In the instant case, nowhere up to learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned AO. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January, 2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, where income declared/returned by any Non-Corporate assessee is up to Rs. 20 lakhs, then the jurisdiction will be of ITO and where the income declared returned by a Non Corporate assessee is above Rs. 20 lakhs, the jurisdiction will be of DC/AC. 3. Petitioner has filed return of income of about Rs. 64,34,663/- and therefore, the jurisdiction will be that of DC/AC and not ITO. Mr. Jain submitted that since notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by ITO, and not by DC/AC that is by a person who did not have any jurisdiction over Petitioner, such notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an officer who had no authority in law to issue such notice. 4. We have con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
