9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s record also suggests the assessee s jurisdiction is in Surat only. The same makes it clear sufficiently clear that impugned assessment in Kolkata suffers from lack of territorial jurisdiction. Thus, reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned assessment since suffering from lack of territorial jurisdiction. Assessee appeal allowed. - Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member For the Appellant Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Mrs. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-SR-DR ORDER This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata s order dated 24.04.2019 passed in case No.242/CIT(A)-15/18-19/Wd-9(1)/R T/KOL, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Case file suggests at the outset that the assessee has raised an additional ground challenging Assessing Officer s territorial jurisdiction as per CBDT s notification No.50 of 2014 w.e.f. 15.11.2014 defining jurisdiction as per the postal PIN. Mr. Surana next invited my attention to the assessee s return dated 14.09.2014 filed at Surat whereas the Assessing Officer in Kolkata has fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er annum. Thus a difference of 0.19% in the rate of interest was found and therefore the assessee was found bearing more burden of interest expense by Rs. 27,15,7124.00 only. Therefore the income of the assessee was under assessed by ₹27,15,724/- on account of higher payment of interest. ii) The assessee has written off a sum of ₹ 2.45 lacs on account of long term investment written off under the head administrative and other expenses . The impugned amount written off was allowed by the AO in assessment proceedings which, in fact, being capital in nature was not an allowable expenditure. Thus, there was under assessment of the total income of the assessee by ₹ 2.45 lakh only. In view of above, a notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 19.08.2014 for the opportunity of being heard and to clarify the aforesaid issue. The assessee in compliance thereto submitted that the loan was given out of the common fund and it was deployed solely for commercial purpose. It is not at all necessary that the all the investment in the business will generate desire rate of return and even at some times the investment may incur the losses. Therefore it is inappropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6.That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-IV, Kolkata failed to appreciate that write-off of long term investments of Rs.245000 is not capital in nature and is allowable either under Section 28(i) of 36(vii) or 37 of the Act. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-IV, Kolkata failed to appreciate that there is no correlation between interest earned and interest paid and the entire interest paid on borrowings which have been used by the appellant company for its business purposes only is fully allowable under section 36(1)(iii) irrespective of any interest earning. 8. That the appellant craves toad, delete or modify any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee before us filed paper book which is running pages from 1 to 86 and submitted that Ld. CIT has passed the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act without having jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessment under section 143(3) in the present case was completed on 21.03.2013 and subsequently the case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircular of CBDT. In this regard, we find that the letter was written by ITO Ward-12(2) to ITO Ward-6(4) is sufficient enough to prove that the jurisdiction over the assessee was changed from Ld. CIT-IV to Ld. CIT-II Kolkata. On being query raised to the assessee from the Bench about the fact whether the assessee brought to the notice to Ld. CIT-IV about the change of jurisdiction. To this point the Ld. AR submitted that the proceedings were completed on 22.09.2014 as evident from the impugned order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act vide dated 19.01.2015. Thereafter there was no communication from the Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kolkata. Moreover, the jurisdiction over the assessee was changed by the CBDT Notification dated 22.10.2014 which was subsequent to the last date of hearing before Ld. CIT-IV Kolkata. In view of the above, we find that there was no jurisdiction under Ld. CIT-IV over the assessee which is evident from the CBDT s Notification as well as from the letter written issued by ITO Ward-12(2). Thus, the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. CIT is without having jurisdiction over the assessee. In such situation, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held such o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
