9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA For the Revenue : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 05.07.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal on record: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,98,345/- out of the total addition of Rs. 7,75,938/- made by the A.O on account of bogus purchase after treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act? 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not accordance with the laws and facts of the case. 3. Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing." 2. The assessee by filing the cross-objection for the year under consideration has raised following grounds: "Gr.No.1: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice issued u/s148 dt.30-3-19 by ITO-1(3), Raipur is invalid, since he was not having valid jurisdiction u/s. 124(1), 120(1) & 120(2) & sec.2(7A) for making assessment; in absence of a valid noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd., Income Tax Appeal No.791 of 2021 and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs. M/s. Mohhomad Haji Adam & Company, ITA No1004 of 2016, dated 11.02.2019 wherein same proposition is reiterated. 5. Now coming to the cross-objection filed by the assessee, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee by way of cross objection has assailed the validity of the re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notice u/s. 148 of the Act for A.Y.2012-13 had been issued by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, dated 30.03.2019 who was not having valid jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant point of time. That further, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the original return of income was filed u/s. 139 of the Act by the assessee on 23.03.2013 declaring income of Rs. 2,52,730/- wherein the Assessing Officer is automatically appearing as ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur who had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2019. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act filed return of income u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.05.2019 declaring the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur was having valid jurisdiction over the assessee who has not issued any notice u/s. 148 of the Act and framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 which is in absence of any notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur and also in absence of any order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act from the competent authority for assuming valid jurisdiction over the assessee, therefore, the assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur is without assuming valid jurisdiction over the assessee for framing assessment would be invalid and bad-in-law. 8. Derived from the Latin word "notitia", which means being known, notice is the starting of any hearing. Unless a person knows the issues of the case in which he is involved, he cannot defend himself. For a notice to be adequate it must contain- (a) Time, place and nature of hearing; (b) Legal authority under which hearing has to be held; and (c) The specific charges, grounds and proposed actions the accused has to meet. This is the very edifice of the principle of natural justice. There is mandatory requirement of reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, all subsequent proceedings are to be held as void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law. 10. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid. Apart from that, it was observed that as there cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment, therefore, any consequential order passed or action taken will be invalid and without jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are culled out as follows: "xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 30. If a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
