Appeal Allowed: Assessment Order Declared Void for Lack of Jurisdiction

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the assessment order null and void ab initio due to improper jurisdiction by the AO Ward 23(4). The Tribunal did not address the merits of the additions made by the AO, as the jurisdictional issue rendered the assessment order invalid. The charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was not adjudicated due to the nullity of the assessment order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO)
2. Validity of the ex-parte order passed by the AO
3. Additions made by the AO on various accounts
4. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The primary contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer (AO) Ward 23(4) did not have the proper jurisdiction to issue notices and pass the assessment order. The assessee had filed the return of income with ITO Ward 39(4) at the address of his principal place of business, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Ward 39(4). The AO Ward 23(4) claimed jurisdiction based on the PAN, which was incorrect as the proper procedure for transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 was not followed. The AO Ward 23(4) did not act on the objection filed by the assessee regarding jurisdiction and proceeded to pass the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the AO Ward 23(4) usurped jurisdiction in a dictatorial manner, contrary to law, making the assessment order null and void ab initio.

2. Validity of the Ex-parte Order:
The AO Ward 23(4) issued notices by affixture at an old address, which was not as per the rules. The only notice served on the assessee was dated 20.07.2010, which was barred by time and could not provide jurisdiction for making an assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal noted that the AO did not comply with the statutory provisions for acquiring proper jurisdiction and passed the assessment order under Section 144 without deciding the jurisdiction issue, rendering the order invalid.

3. Additions Made by the AO:
The AO made several additions on an ad hoc basis, including:
- Rs. 25,00,000 as unexplained investment in purchases made outside books.
- Rs. 10,81,512 estimating net profit on estimated undisclosed sales.
- Rs. 2,00,000 on account of short-term capital gain.
- Rs. 86,506 as estimated interest income.
- Rs. 1,15,000 on account of disallowance of claim under Chapter VI-A.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of these additions as the jurisdictional issue itself rendered the assessment order null and void.

4. Charging of Interest:
The AO ordered to charge interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, which the CIT(A) did not adjudicate, stating these are mandatory and consequential. However, since the assessment order was found to be null and void due to jurisdictional issues, the Tribunal did not need to address this matter separately.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, declaring the assessment order null and void ab initio due to improper jurisdiction by the AO Ward 23(4). The appeal was allowed on the grounds of jurisdiction, and thus, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the additions made by the AO. The order was pronounced on May 8, 2020.

---