9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inabove is more than Rs.15 Lac, since the income includes losses or the losses are at par with income. In view of aforesaid CBDT s instructions followed by communication by the Ld. CCIT, Raipur, it is held that the first notice u/s 143(2) issued by the ITO Ward- 1(1), Raipur, was clearly against the mandate of instructions issued. Regarding, the subsequent notice u/s 143(2) issued by the jurisdictional AO i.e., ACIT-4(1), Raipur on 28.07.2017, the same cannot be considered as a valid notice, which was issued beyond the specified date under the provisions of Sec. 143(2), which was expired on 30.09.2016. Regarding the objection raised by Ld. CIT DR that the assessee has not objected to the jurisdiction of the ITO-1(1) within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on the assessee. The issue has been duly considered in the case of Durga Manikanta 2023 (1) TMI 1099 - ITAT RAIPUR] as held the assessee s objection to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai is by no means an objection to his territorial jurisdiction, but in fact an objection to the assumption of jurisdiction by him in contravention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss Objection. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under: 1. Whether on points of law and on facts circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,81,00,000/- by ignoring the facts as brought on record by the AO that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders as per the parameters of the legal provisions u/s 68 of the Act? 2. Whether on points of law and on facts circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified by ignoring that after the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/S Lovely Export Pvt Ltd. and M/S Divine Leasing Finance Ltd. (2007), the government has brought amendment in the section 68 of the Act by introducing two provisos that the source of source of share capital may be verified. An additional onus needs to be placed on such companies to also prove the source of money in the hands of such shareholder or persons making payment towards issue of shares before such sum is accepted as genuine credit. If the company fails to discharge the additional onus, the sum shall be treated as income of the company and added to its income which in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l notice issued u/s 143(2) and is liable to be quashed. 2. The cross objection reserves the right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of cross objection. 4. The brief facts of the case stated are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed his return of income electronically on 28.09.2015 declaring a loss of Rs. (43,88,925/-). The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of Silver bullion, Silver ornaments, and Gold bars during the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category Limited Scrutiny for FY 2015-16 to examine the following issues: (1) Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in the audit report and ITR. (2) large share premium received during the year. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee in response to the notice and questionnaire. Counsel of the assessee attended the hearing of the assessment from time to time and filed the written submission with details. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has received share application money and a share premium of Rs. 5,81,00,000/- from Kolkata-bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are revealed and observed by the Ld. AO. The bank statements of the investor companies reveals that funds were received and transferred on the same day in and from their accounts, leaving meagre balance in their accounts, Ld. AO further analysed, the modus operandi of shell companies carried out in providing entries in the garb of share application and share premium. With such observations, Ld. AO has culminated the assessment by adding Rs. 5.81/- crore as undisclosed income in the hands of assessee company, as chargeable to tax under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the contentions of the assessee have been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A), and the entire addition of share capital money for Rs. 5,81,00,000/- termed as unexplained cash credit by the Ld AO u/s 68 has been vacated. 6. Dissatisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A), now the revenue has carried this matter before us under the present appeal. On the appeal of the department, the assessee has also filed a cross objection. 7. At the outset, when the captioned appeal and CO has been taken up for hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparing the arguments very recently and in the course of such preparation, it transpired that 1 st notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional AO and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by Jurisdictional AO, with in the prescribed time and therefore, the assessment order and the assessment proceedings suffer from jurisdictional illegality. This fact came to be noticed very recently and the assessee was therefore advised by the new counsel to file cross objection, challenging the legality of the assessment proceedings on this account. On receipt of such advice, cross objection has been filed. Since the earlier counsel of assessee is not much into litigation practice, this issue could not be taken before ld. CIT(A) nor could it be timely briefed to the new counsel. Therefore, your honour would kindly appreciate that the delay in filing cross objection is attributable to the assessee not having been advised earlier. There is therefore, a reasonable cause for the delay, which is unintentional. 5. In view of above facts and submissions, it is most humbly requested that the delay in filing cross objection may kindly be condoned. Not condoning the delay would cause injustice to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass such orders as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that we fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT (1991)187 ITR 688 (SC) Before the AAC, the assessee raised an additional ground claiming deduction, on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC). The Tribunal held that the AAC had no jurisdiction to entertain additional ground. It was held that an appellate authority while hearing the appeal against the order of the subordinate authority, has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. It held vide para 6 that the appellate authority must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. iii) Venture Textiles Ltd. vs CIT in Income Tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment has preferred second appeal, which is pending before Hon'ble ITAT. 2. In this case, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,81,00,000/- u/s 68, on account of share capital holding that the companies who had given money to the investor of assessee had no income and had raised money from Kolkata-based companies. The bank account of 3 companies from whom the investor of assessee received money only showed rotation of money. 3. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition mainly holding that: - i) Investor had net worth of Rs. 15.81 crore and invested in many other companies. ii) Money was raised by investor by selling investment in shares. For AY 2012/13, investor assessed u/s 143(3). iii) Capital in the hands of investor company accepted in its case, investment out of such capital cannot be doubted. iv) Without finding any fault in the documents filed by the assessee, no adverse findings can be made. CIT vs Lovely Exports and ACIT vs Venkateshwar Ispat P. Ltd. 319 ITR 393 (Chhattisgarh) was relied upon. v) Reason for non-service of notice was explained to be shifting of registered office of investor. 4. It is observed that notice u/s 143 (2) issued initially for selection of case in scrutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed time, consequent assessment order passed by the AO is rendered without jurisdiction and is unsustainable. 8. Therefore, the assessee most respectfully wishes to invoke Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 to challenge the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the following) ground: - The assessment order passed by AO is illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed as no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the jurisdictional AO within the prescribed time. The assessment order is unsustainable. 9. In AAA Paper Marketing Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No. 167, 168, 321, 322 192/LKW/2016 vide order dt. 28.04.2017 Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of ITAT ( B Bench) has held that although relief has been allowed to the assessee by CIT(A), the assessee can defend his case invoking Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on a ground which was not raised by the assessee before AO/CIT(A) and such ground can be raised at any stage of the proceeding before the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of ITAT D Bench Delhi cit. 19.05.2014 in the case of DCIT vs Jubiliant Enpro Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 560/ Del/ 2010. A copy of the order of Hon'ble Lucknow Bench and of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal is enclosed. 10. The ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18) 257 Taxman 585 (Dom.) Vide para 9, it was held that jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter could be raised at any time, even before Supreme Court for the 1st time. 8. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the assessee may kindly be allowed to invoke Rule 27 and this application may kindly be admitted, per need of justice. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Rajdhani Jewellers Gems Pvt. Ltd. 12. On perusal of the aforesaid application of the assessee, it is observed that the legal issue raised by the assessee is vital enough, which goes to the route of the matter and is permissible to be raised at this stage. In this regard, Hon ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (NTPC) v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383/157 CTR 249 (SC), following the judgment in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 187 ITR688 (SC), has held as under: section 254 is couched in the widest possible terms and there is nothing in the provision which stops the Tribunal from entertaining a claim, which has not been raised before the lower authorities. The purpose of the assessment proceedings is to determine the correct amount of taxable income and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in (2008) 304 ITR 0308 (SC) , in this judgment Hon ble Apex court has held that the expression 'income' should be understood to include losses: The Position has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in CIT vs. Harprasad Co. (P) Ltd. 1975 CTR (SC) 65 : (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC). This Court held with reference to the charging provisions of the statute that the expression 'income' should be understood to include losses. The expression 'profits and gains' refers to positive income whereas losses represent negative profit or in other words minus income. This aspect does not appear to have been noticed by the Bench in Virtual's case (supra). Reference to the order by this Court dismissing the Revenue's Civil Appeal No. 7961 of 1996 on CIT vs. Prithpal Singh Co. (supra) is also not very important because that was in relation to the asst. yr. 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to s. 271 (1)(c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Harprasad's case (supra) leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes losses. Explanation. 4(a) as it stood during the period 1st April 1976 to 1st April, 2003 has to be considered in the background ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over the case of the assessee who is located in a mofussil area i.e. Bhilai and had filed a non-corporate return for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 6,57,380/- was vested with the ITO, Ward 1(1), Bhilai. Although notice u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015 had been issued within the stipulated time period, i.e., within six months from the end of the relevant assessment year which would have expired as on 30.09.2015, however, the same was issued by the DCIT-1(1), Bhilai, i.e., an A.O who pursuant to the CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2011, dated 31.01.2011 was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. On the other hand, the ITO-1(1), Bhilai, who as per the aforesaid CBDT Instruction (supra) was vested with the exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration had issued the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 05.05.2016, i.e., beyond the stipulated time period, therefore, no valid jurisdiction could have been assumed on the basis of the same for framing the assessment vide order under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.12.2016. 16. On the basis of our aforesaid de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee, but the same thereafter had wrongly been framed by an officer who as observed by us hereinabove did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee in so far the year under consideration was concerned. As the criteria laid down vide the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 for conferring the varied jurisdictions with the ITOs/DCs/ACs on the basis of income declared by the assessee in his return of income is binding upon the department and has to be scrupulously followed, therefore, there can be no escape from the same for justifying assumption of jurisdiction by an officer other than that prescribed in the said instruction. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the Judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs etc. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Anr. (2004) 267 ITR 272 (SC). In the aforesaid judgments it was held by the Hon ble Apex Court that though the CBDT/CBEC circulars are not binding on court or the assessee, but the departmental authorities are bound by them and cannot act in contravention of the same. Also, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon ble High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz Vs. CIT, Tax Appeal Nos. 19 to 30 of 2017, dated 05.04.2021 and that of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh D Patel (2014) 362 ITR492 (Guj.). In the aforesaid cases the Hon ble High Courts have held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 which places an embargo on an assessee to raise an objection as regards the validity of the jurisdiction of an A.O would get triggered only in a case where the dispute of the assessee is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction and would have no relevance in so far his inherent jurisdiction for framing the assessment is concerned. Also, support is drawn from a recent judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nopany Sons (2022) 136 taxmann.com 414 (Cal). In the case before the Hon ble High Court the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward-3 to ITO, Ward-4 and the impugned order was passed by the ITO, Ward-4 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1, Bhilai. Neither is there any reason discernible from the orders of the lower authorities nor demonstrated before us by the ld. DR which would by any means justify framing of the assessment vide impugned order u/s 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. Apart from that, we find that as per the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 127 of the Act, where a case is to be transferred by authorities therein specified from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him, then he is under an obligation to record his reasons for doing so after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so. For the sake of clarity sub-section (1) of Section 127 is culled out as under: (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reason that the same were passed by officers who were not vested with the requisite jurisdiction as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench SMC in the case of Anderson Printing House (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 548 (Kolkata-Trib.). In its order the Tribunal had after drawing support from the order of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2517 (Kol) of 2019, dated 03.02.2021 which in turn had relied on the earlier orders passed in the case of Hillman Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2634/Kol/2019; Soma Roy Vs. ACIT, ITA No.463/Kol/2019 dated 08.01.2020; and Shri Sukumar Ch. Sahoo Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2073/Kol/2016 dated 27.09.2017, had struck down the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O who had framed the assessment in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, observing as under: 5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions would reveal that the jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities may be fixed not only in respect of territorial area but also I.T.A. No. 339/Kol/2021 Assessment Yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. 7. A perusal of the above statutory provisions would reveal that jurisdiction to transfer case from one Assessing Officer to other Officer lies with the Officers as mentioned in section 127(1) who are of the rank of Commissioner or above. No document has been produced on the file by the Department to show that the case was transferred by the competent authority from Income Tax Officer to ACIT. The notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by ACIT which was beyond his jurisdiction and the same is therefore, void ab initio. Under the circumstances, the assessment framed by ACIT, is bad in law as he did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to frame the assessment. The issue relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction also came into consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2517/Kol/2019 and Others vide order dated 03.02.2021, wherein the Tribunal further relying upon various other decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favor of the assessee and held that the assessment framed by Assessing Officer who was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to frame such assessment w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment 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. 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. I have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, I hold as follows:- I find that there is no dispute in the fact that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt. 29/09/2016 has been issued by the ITO, Wd-1(1), Durgapur. Later, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the ACIT on 11/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;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, when the ITO realized that he did not had the pecuniary jurisdiction to issue notice he duly transferred the file to the ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09. 2014 when the ACIT issued statutory notice which was beyond the time limit prescribed for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. We note that the ACIT by assuming the jurisdiction after the time prescribed for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act notice became qoarum non judice after the limitation prescribed by the statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apse of the stipulated time period, i.e., beyond the specified time frame which expired as on 30.09.2015, therefore, the assessment order so framed would also not be saved on the said basis. To sum up, as the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 29.12.2016 had been framed by the ITO- Ward 1(1), Bhilai de-hors the issuance of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be sustained is liable to quashed. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.143(3), dated 29.12.2016 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 17. Ld. AR also placed his reliance on the following judgment wherein the aforesaid issue regarding validity of assessment in absence of assumption of valid jurisdiction by the AO have been dealt with and guiding principles of law are laid down. The observations and findings by the Hon ble High Courts in the following judgments have already been discussed in the case of Durga Manikanta Traders (supra) in the foregoing para s. - Sudhir Kumar Agrawal vs ITO in ITA No. 158/RPR/2017 dated 17.10.2022, - Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom.). - Peter Vaz vs CIT (2021) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty Commissioner . (4). The Hon'ble High COU1t of Madras in the case of C. Krishnan v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Erode reported in 120141 52 taxmann.com 3() (Madras) wherein it was held that A circular or a direction or an order issued by CBDT under section 1 19 cannot mitigate powers of Director General or Chief Commissioner under section 127 (5). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi- XVI v. S.S. Ahluwalia reported in 120141 46 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi) wherein it was held that An assessment order passed without making reference to Commissioner under section 124 is not a nullity for want of jurisdiction but it results in an irregularity which can be rectified by order of remit and In case assessee shifts his residence or place of business or work etc, Assessing Officer of place where assessee has shifted or otherwise, will have jurisdiction and it is not necessary that in such a case, an order under section 127 is required to be passed It is further submitted that the assessee will raise any issue for non- compliance with jurisdictional parameter and filed any application under rule 27, should not be considered on the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e s returned income was a loss of Rs.(43,88,925/-), which as discussed hereinabove is more than Rs.15 Lac, since the income includes losses or the losses are at par with income. 22. For the sake of clarity, regarding the violation in adhering to the instruction of CBDT vide instruction no. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, we may note that, in the instruction no. 01/2011, the limits in terms of income declared for assigning the cases to AO s have been revised, the limits prescribed by CBDT for corporate returns was further reduced from Rs.20 Lac to Rs.15 Lac by the Ld. CCIT, Raipur (in exercise as directed by the CBDT vide instruction no. 6/2011 dated 08.04.2011), vide communication dated 30.05.2011, effective from 01.06.2011, to revisit the limits decided by CBDT in order to adjust the same by an amount up to Rs.5 lacs to ensure that the work load is equitably distributed amongst the Assessing Officers after assigning reason. Copy of the communication dated 30.05.2011 issued by Ld. CCIT, Raipur, is extracted as under, for the completeness of facts: 23. In view of aforesaid CBDT s instructions followed by communication by the Ld. CCIT, Raipur, it is held that the first notice u/s 143(2) iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Ward-2(2), Bhilai is by no means an objection to his territorial jurisdiction, but in fact an objection to the assumption of jurisdiction by him in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 124 would not assist the case of the revenue. 25. In terms of foregoing observations of the tribunal, wherein the objection raised by the revenue are specifically dealt with, therefore, in the present case the same contention raised by the revenue cannot be decided differently. We, therefore, in absence of any cogent material brought on record by the revenue w.r.t. facts in the present case to dislodge the aforesaid conviction are unable to convince ourselves with the objections raised, accordingly the objections are disposed-off against the revenue. 26. In backdrop of aforesaid observations, respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur, in the case of M/s Durga Manikanta Trader (supra), adverting to the facts of the present case, wherein admittedly, the first notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward-1(1), Raipur, on 13.04.2016, who was not vested with valid jurisdiction over the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
