2015 (1) TMI 1431 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT (A) decision on assessment jurisdiction. Revenue appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT (A)'s decision that the assessment under section 143(3) was invalid due to lack of valid jurisdiction under section 143(2). ... Notice u/s 143(2) not to the correct address - whether the Assessing Officer rightly assumed jurisdiction when he issued statutory noticed to the address as given in the PAN records (BKC Address) and not the address as per the return of income i.e., Prabhadevi address - HELD THAT:- During assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 28.11.2008 brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 5.10.2007 was not served o the appellant and therefore, the proceedings u/s 143(2) were bad in law. In view of the appellant’s raising such objections during assessment proceedings, the provisions of section 292BB were not applicable and section 292BB could not have given validity to the illegality / irregularity of the notices. In view of discussion made above, it is held that the Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of the Act. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Validity of assessment under section 143(3) based on notice under section 143(2)2. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer based on address discrepancyAnalysis:Issue 1: Validity of assessment under section 143(3) based on notice under section 143(2)The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the order of the CIT (A) dated 23.12.2010, questioning the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3). The Revenue contended that the notice under section 143(2) was issued and served before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return of income was filed by the assessee. However, the CIT (A) held that the statutory notices were issued without jurisdiction. The CIT (A) pointed out that the appellant had raised objections during assessment proceedings, stating that the notice under section 143(2) was not served on the appellant, rendering the proceedings under section 143(2) invalid. The CIT (A) concluded that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) without valid jurisdiction under section 143(2), making the assessment invalid. Consequently, the ground of appeal was allowed by the CIT (A).Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer based on address discrepancyThe limited issue to be decided was whether the Assessing Officer rightly assumed jurisdiction when issuing statutory notices to the address in the PAN records (BKC Address) instead of the address provided in the return of income (Prabhadevi address). The appellant had communicated the changed address to the ITO in 2005, but the notices were sent to the old address. The CIT (A) granted relief, holding that the statutory notices were issued without jurisdiction. The CIT (A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction based on the PAN records address was incorrect. The order highlighted that the assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid due to the lack of valid jurisdiction under section 143(2). The Tribunal found the CIT (A)'s decision reasonable and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the fairness and reasonableness of the CIT (A)'s decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (A) regarding the invalidity of the assessment under section 143(3) due to the lack of valid jurisdiction under section 143(2). The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT (A)'s findings and reasoning.