9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners. The report which is filed by the AO dated 26.06.2024 and reproduced above categorically mentions the fact that it is only on 15.05.2024, the PAN of the assessee has been transferred to ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut, from ITO, Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut, as per CBDT Instruction No. 05/2011 dated 31.01.2011 vide which jurisdiction of noncorporate returns above Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ACIT/DCIT and upto Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ITO. If the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issued by an authority not having jurisdiction, would be valid by referring to section 292BB of the Act, has held that jurisdiction can neither be waived nor created even by consent and even by submitting to juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who did not have the requisite jurisdiction on pecuniary basis and in support reference is invited to CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 dated 31.08.2011. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the powers to be exercised were quasi judicial powers and since without having jurisdiction the notice was issued by the Revenue officer, who did not have pecuniary jurisdiction, the assessment order is void ab initio. 3. The ld. DR, however, countered this by submitting that as the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings, objections cannot be raised at this stage. In this context, the ld. DR has relied the judgements of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sagar Developers, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 321 (Gujara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has been transferred to ACIT Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut on 15.05.2024 from ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut, as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, vide which jurisdiction of non-corporate returns above Rs. 15 Lacs lies with ACIT/DCIT and upto Rs. 15 Lacs lies with ITO. 3. The Hon'ble ITAT has directed to send report regarding the correctness of jurisdiction of the Officer, issuing notice u/s 148 by ITO Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut. No internal orders were made for transfer of PAN within the PCIT charge. The assessee did not raise any objection regarding the jurisdiction of Circle/Ward during the assessment proceedings. 4. The assessee raised an objection against the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 for A.Y. 2013-14. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 31.03.2011. 5.2 In this context, the coordinate Bench order in the case of J. Mitra & Brothers vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3643/Del/2023 decided on 10.04.2024 has been relied by the ld. AR wherein the coordinate Bench, relying another decision in the case of Kelvin International vs. DCIT, ITA No. 5363/Del/2017, order dated 22.12.2023, has held that the exercise of jurisdiction of Revenue Officer who did not have the jurisdiction given by the CBDT Instructions cannot be sustained and the assessment order is vitiated. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT-II, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Proprietor M/s M.R. Garments, in ITA No. 1000/2015, order dated 30.03.2017 has examined this aspect on the basis of numerous judicial pronouncements a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
