9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case and in law, there is violation of sec.143(2) as notice u/s. 143(2) can only be issued by the 'Assessing Officer' as mentioned in the sec143(2) itself as "the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice"; in absence of a valid notice issued by the 'Assessing Officer' u/s. 143(2) as mandated by law u/s. 143(2) sec.124(3)(a) does not come into play, assessment made u/s. 143(3) by ITO-3(1) would be invalid as without having valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s. 143(3), is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s143(3) by ITO-3(1) is invalid; it is in violation of sec127(1) & sec127(3); notice u/s. 143(2) issued by ITO-4(5); there is no mention of any order u/s. 127 by the PCIT for transferring the 'case' from ITO-4(5) to ITO-3(1); in absence of order u/s127 by PCIT, assessment made u/s. 143(3) by ITO- 3(1) would be invalid as without having valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s. 143(3), is liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 23,94,038 on the count of cash deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3(1), then as per the mandatory requirement of the Act, order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act is required. However, no such order has been placed by the department and nothing is there on record that such order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act was acquired; secondly, if it is accepted that the actual jurisdiction of the officer regarding the assessee was the ITO, Ward- 3(1), Raipur which is likely so since the e-filed return is admittedly taken by the designation of the A.O as per the address of the assessee to be ITO, Ward-3(1) appearing in the acknowledgment of the ITR filed on 22.02.2017 in the said assessment year, Page 8-9 of APB. Now if that be so, then the initiation of the proceedings of limited scrutiny i.e. with regard to the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur suffers from valid jurisdiction, resultantly then subsequent assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur becomes invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') vehemently submitted that as per Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, if the assessee had any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue of jurisdiction before any appellate forum as had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). Rightfully so mentioned in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when certain legal issues have been arisen and the assessee has failed to raise such legal issues before the sub-ordinate authorities, then he should not be prevented from raising the same before any other appellate authority. Therefore, taking guidance from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention regarding the issue of jurisdiction is held to be valid as had been raised by the assessee first time before the Tribunal. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) as has been relied on by the Ld. Sr. DR is clearly focused on the parameter of compliance. However, in the present case as demonstrated in the record, it is not that of compliance and rather, it is ambiguity in issuance of notice and denying an opportunity to the assessee as to whether he should respond to the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court observed that "One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice, i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear and precise so as to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and any ambiguity there denied the right of the assessee for fair and judicious proceedings. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case." 7. Rebutting the facts of the present case, it is noted as per the documents on record that the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 was issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur and thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur who had framed the assessment without any order of transfer as required u/s. 127 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Similarly, if it is to be accepted that the actual jurisdiction is with the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur then first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 which had been issued for initiating the scrutiny proceedings by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur is definitely without a valid jurisdiction over the assessee. When the issuance of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
