9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO when the AO issuing notice had no jurisdiction to issue notice in view of the CBDT's notification with regard to the monetary limit of jurisdiction. 3. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in justifying the notice u/s 143(2) bringing in the procedure of NF AC when the notice u/s 143(2) was never issued by NF AC 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO even though he did not dispose off the objections raised with regard to issue of Jurisdiction and therefore the entire reassessment is liable to be quashed. 5. For that the reassessment completed without forwarding the complete copy of sanction received from the PCIT u/s 151 is bad in law and liable to quashed more so since the sanction accorded was only mechanical in nature. 6. For that the Ld. CIT erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition on issues other than the issue on which the reopening was done on which no addition was made and therefore the entire addition is liable to be deleted. 7. For that the Ld. CIT erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 37,20,000/-as investment in property from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) and that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle-24(2), Hooghly. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The validity of the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act has been challenged on the ground of non-issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional assessing officer. We observe that the assessee is an individual. He filed his regular return of income on 21.03.2014 for AY 2013-14 declaring total income at Rs. 11,67,448/-. The return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, based on information in possession of the Department that the assessee had purchased various properties in his personal name below the stamp duty value, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by ACIT, Circle-24(2), Hooghly on 03.01.2020. Thereafter, reasons for reopening were supplied vide letter dated 16.01.2020 by ACIT, Circle-24(2), Hooghly. Copies are placed at page 1 to 3 of the paperbook. Further, we observe that on 24.01.2020 ACIT, Circle-24(2), Hooghly issued a letter to the assessee stating that since the assessee is director of Mondal Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and since the jurisdiction of the company lies with ACIT, Circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the revenue on the ground that the same was filed by ACIT-39, Kolkata while the jurisdiction was with ITO-44 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Court by holding that there was a fundamental error on which the appellate tribunal dismissed as incompetent since the order of AO who had no jurisdiction to undertake the assessment qua the assessee could have been found to be legal or resurrected and Court held that the order which was sought to be revived by carrying an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal in this case was itself an order without jurisdiction and there was no question of the Appellate Tribunal going into the merits of the matter or seeking to give legal support to an order that was inherently lacking in jurisdiction. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. b) In the case of PCIT vs. Nopani & Sons (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has under: "This factual position could not be controverted by the revenue before us. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra), non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and, therefore, it is not curable. Thus, on facts, it having been established tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the AO was on the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the same having been complied with, the revenue cannot take shelter under the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act. Thus, we are of the clear view that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the revenue's appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue." c) In the case of PCIT vs. Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Court has held as under: "We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/ revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Avara Majumder, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. After elaborately hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perusing the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal was fully justified in allowing the assessee's appeal by taking note of the decision of this Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g leave to raise additional grounds and this application was held and after contest the application was allowed. The learned Tribunal, in fact, recorded that the Department could not controvert any of the submissions of the assessee on the additional grounds which have been raised and, therefore, the application was allowed taking note of the matter that the issue goes to the root of the entire proceedings. Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in allowing the assessee's appeal. For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITAT/78/2022) is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. Consequently, the connected application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2022) also stands dismissed." d) In the case of PCIT vs. Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it has been held as under by the Hon'ble High Court: "We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheira, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Jawed Ahmed Khan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Talha Ahmed and Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. The short question involved in the instant case is whether the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
