9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal before us, which reads as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, since no notice u/s. 143(2) has been issued by the jurisdictional A.O, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dt. 18-3-15 is invalid, bad in law and is liable to be quashed." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading of electrical items had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur on 17.09.2012, declaring an income of Rs. 2,96,390/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 3. Assessment, was, thereafter framed by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 18.03.2015, determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 28,38,520/- after, inter alia, making the following two additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs. 4,59,219/- 2. Addition @18.05% on undisclosed turnover of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory for the purpose of framing of an assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, therefore, in the absence of the same the assessment in hand could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. 9. On a specific query by the bench that the A.O in the body of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 18.03.2015 had categorically stated that a notice u/s. 143(2) dated 08.08.2013 was issued and duly served on the assessee on 21.08.2013, therefore, how his aforesaid claim was maintainable. Also, the attention of the Ld. AR was drawn towards the assessment order, wherein it was stated that notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 25.08.2014. Reference was also made to the observation of the A.O that a notice u/s. 143(2), dated 12.12.2014 was issued to the assessee. In reply, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that while for the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee at the relevant point of time, i.e, at the time of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, however, as the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 08.08.2013 was issued by a non-jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank, Jawahar Nagar, M.G Road, Raipur" was automatically transferred to the ITO, Ward-1(3). To sum up, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was initially vested with the ITO- Ward 1(2), Raipur, which pursuant to the restructuring and reallocation of the territorial jurisdictions of the AO's vide the CBDT Notification No. 1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014 was transferred to ITO-Ward 1(3), Raipur. On the basis of his aforesaid averments, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that as the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 08.08.2013 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur was invalid for the reason that at the relevant point of time the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur with whom return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee, therefore, the assessment framed de hors issuance of a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count. 10. Apart from that, it was averred by the Ld. AR that neither the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur as on the date of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 was vested with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be struck down for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction for framing of the assessment. 11. It was, thus, the claim of the Ld. AR that as the A.O who was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee i.e. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur had not issued any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act latest by 30.09.2013, i.e., within a period of 6 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015 would not stand and was liable to be quashed. Alternatively, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as pursuant to the restructuring and reallocation of the territorial jurisdictions of the A.O's, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, therefore, framing of the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur was liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 12. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the residential address of the assessee fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-1(1), R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom the assessee had validly filed his return of income for the year under consideration, therefore, dehors issuance of any notice u/s. 143(2) by the said A.O within the stipulated time period, i.e, latest by 30.09.2013 had rendered the assessment framed u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015 as invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. Alternatively, it is the claim of the Ld. AR that as pursuant to the CBDT Notification No. 1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014 the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of his business address was automatically transferred to ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, therefore, the framing of the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur was devoid and bereft of any force of law, and thus, was not sustainable. 15. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR on the basis of which he has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the ITO-Ward-1(1), Raipur for initiating the assessment proceeding u/s. 143(2) of the Act, as well as framing of the assessment vide order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015 by the ITO-Ward 2(1), Raipur. 16. After having given a thoughtful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-Aug-1967 Gender Male Male Aadhaar Number 747760399564 747760399564 Primary Mobile Number 9425209127 - Primary Email ID [email protected] - Address for Communication H. No. 490, Near Rly. Line, Sachdeva Nursing Home, Gali, Samta Colony, Raipur House No. 10, Balaji Homes, Near Chhattisgarh Hotel, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur-492 001 Also, our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the copy of the PAN : ACAPC7574M of the assessee which clearly referred to the aforesaid date ,i.e., "05.10.2017" on which, the new address was provided in the PAN database on the basis of that as was available in his "Aadhaar Card". 18. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is established beyond doubt that at the relevant point of time when the notice u/s. 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 was issued to the assessee, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of address provided in the PAN data base was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur. We, thus, are of the considered view that as the notice u/s. 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 was validly issued by the ITO, Ward1(1), Raipur who at the relevant point of time was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, the assessee has failed to prove the alleged communication dated 06.12.2005. The only document available is Form No. 18 filed with the ROC. Filing of Form18 with the ROC cannot be said to be an intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to intimation of change in address. It appears that no application was made by the assessee to change the address in the PAN data base and in the PAN database the old address continued. Therefore, in absence of any intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice at the address available as per the PAN database. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot be said to have committed any error and in fact the Assessing Officer was justified in sending the notice at the address as per the PAN database. If that is so, the notice dated 05.10.2007 can be said to be within the period prescribed in proviso to Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Once the notice is issued within the period prescribed as per the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act, the same can be said to be sufficient compliance of Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Once the notice is sent within the period prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any change in the registered office or the corporate office and the same has to be intimated to the Registrar of Companies in the prescribed format (Form 18) and after completing with the said requirement, the assessee is required to approach the Department with the copy of the said document and the assessee is also required to make an application for change of address in the departmental database of PAN, which in the present case the assessee has failed to do so. 8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the assessee that with respect to the Assessment Years 200405 and 200506, communications and the assessment orders were sent at the new address and therefore the Assessing Officer was in the knowledge of the new address is concerned, the same has been sufficiently explained by the Revenue. 9. In view of our findings, recorded hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the orders passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) and the I.T.A.T holding the assessment order bad in law on the aforesaid ground cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. As the learned C.I.T (Appeals) has not considered the other grounds on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the territorial jurisdictions of the AO's vide the CBDT Notification No. 1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014, the automatic transfer of the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee from the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur to ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur could also not be faulted. We, say so, for the reason that now when the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur pursuant to the residential address that was provided by the assessee in his PAN database was validly vested with the territorial jurisdiction over his case, therefore, the subsequent transfer of the territorial jurisdiction over the said residential area to ITO, Ward-2(1) could by no means be called in question by the assessee. We, thus, are of the considered view that as the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee stood transferred to ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, therefore, the latter in exercise of his jurisdiction had validly framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015. 20. We, thus, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations are unable to concur with the claim of the assessee that the A.O, i.e., ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and issued notice u/s. 143(2), dated 08.08.2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
