9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice u/s. 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 to the assessee, we are of the view that 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, 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. We, thus, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations are unable to concur with the claim of the assessee that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 1,15,39,697/- Rs. 20,82,915/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who though vacated the disallowance made by the A.O u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs. 4,59,219/- but upheld the disallowance of Rs. 11,53,939/- (out of Rs. 20,82,915/-) and thus, partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We shall first deal with the admissibility of the additional ground of appeal that has been raised by the assessee-appellant before us. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional ground had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing of the assessment vide order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 18.03.2015, which involves purely a question of law that would not require looking no further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-jurisdictional A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, thus, no valid jurisdiction could have been assumed on the basis of the same for framing of the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Apropos, the notices issued u/ss. 143(2)/142(1) dated 25.08.2014 by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, it was claim of the Ld. AR that not only the same once again issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O, but even otherwise the same having been issued beyond the stipulated time period i.e a period beyond 6 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, was, thus, non-est and had no existence in the eyes of law. Referring to the notice u/s. 143(2), dated 12.12.2014 issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that no valid assumption of jurisdiction for framing assessment u/s. 143(3) could have been gathered on the basis of the said notice for two-fold reasons, viz. (i) that the same was issued by a non-jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 any inherent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee u/s. 124(1) of the Act, nor any such jurisdiction was vested with him pursuant to transfer of the assessee's case to him u/s. 127(1) of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur who was vested with the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee u/s. 124(1) of the Act, had not issued any notice u/s. 143(2) upto 30.09.2013, i.e., within a period of 6 months from the end of the relevant assessment year. A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, the impugned assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 18.03.2015 was devoid and bereft of any force of law. It was further submitted by 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 was automatically vested with the ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, as the assessee was deriving business inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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), Raipur, therefore, no infirmity did emerge from the notice u/s. 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 that was validly issued by him. Taking further his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. DR that as pursuant to the CBDT Notification No. 1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014, the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee got automatically transferred from the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur to ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, therefore, the latter had validly exercised his jurisdiction and framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had even otherwise failed to call in question the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur within a period of 1 month from the date on which he was served with a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 08.08.2013, therefore, he in the course of the present proceedings was prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idity 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 consideration to the facts involved in the present case in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, we are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the claim of the Ld. AR. As observed by us hereinabove, the Ld. AR had, inter alia, called in question the jurisdiction assumed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. It is the claim of the Ld. AR that as the territorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of his business address, i.e., "..Street of Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, M.G Road, Raipur" (which falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Ward-37, Raipur) was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, therefore, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 08.08.2013 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur was devoid and bereft of any force of law. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N 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 on the basis of his residential address that was available in his PAN database, therefore, no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by him for issuing notice u/s 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 therein emerges. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Pr. CIT Vs. I-Ven Interactive Limited (2019) 418 ITR 662(SC). In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that where the assessee had failed to file an application to change its address in the PAN database, and thus, the old address continued then, in absence of any intimation to the A.O with respect to change in address no infirmity did arise from the notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act at the address that was at the relevant point of time available in the PAN database. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are culled out as under: "6. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed 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 prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act, in that case, actual service of the notice upon the assessee thereafter would be immaterial. In a given case, it may happen that though the notice is sent within the period prescribed, the assessee may avoid actual service of the notice till the period prescribed expired. Even in the relied upon case by the learned Senior Advocate for the assessee in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra), it is observed that the Assessing Officer must necessarily issue notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming the orders passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) and the I.T.A.T. setting aside the assessment order solely on the ground that the assessment order is bad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 merits and has not considered the appeal on merits, the matter is required to be remanded to the learned C.I.T (Appeals) to consider the appeal on merits, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the present Appeal is Allowed. The Impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court as well as the orders passed by the C.I.T (Appeals) and the I.T.A.T are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned C.I.T (Appeals) to consider the Appeal on merits on other grounds, in accordance with law. No costs." We, thus, on the basis of the facts involved in the case of the present assessee before us r.w the aforesaid settled position of law, are of the considered view, that now when the assessee had provided his residential address i.e. "...H. No. 490, Near Rly. Line, Sachdeva Nursing Home, Gali, Samta Colony, Raipur" in his PAN database, then he would not be permitted to assail the vali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Also, we find no substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur had exceeded his jurisdiction and framed the assessment in the case of the assessee vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2015. Accordingly, finding no substance in the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us, we dismiss the same in terms of our aforesaid observations. 21. As the Ld. AR had not placed any contentions on the merits of the case, and during the course of hearing of the appeal had limited his contention to the two fold issues, viz. (i) validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O, i.e., ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act; and (ii) validity of the assessment framed u/s 143(3), dated 18.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, therefore, we confine our adjudication to the aforesaid issues and refrain from adverting to the other grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
