ITAT condones 2083-day delay citing COVID and relocation, quashes assessment for jurisdictional defect

The ITAT Kolkata condoned a 2083-day delay in filing appeal, attributing over two years to COVID period and noting the assessee's relocation to Port Blair with undelivered notices sent to Kolkata address. The Tribunal found the assessment invalid as JCIT Range-37 Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the assessee who had been filing returns in Port Blair since AY 2008-09. Per CBDT circular, Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal has jurisdiction over Andaman and Nicobar Islands, not Commissioner of Income Tax-13 Kolkata. Following coordinate bench precedents, the assessment was quashed and the appeal allowed on jurisdictional grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. General nature of Ground no. 1.
2. Validity of the assessment order due to jurisdictional issues.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Summary:

1. General Nature of Ground no. 1:
The Tribunal noted that Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require adjudication.

2. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Jurisdictional Issues:
The primary legal issue raised in Ground no. 2 pertains to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in framing the assessment. The assessee contended that the AO from Range-37, Kolkata, lacked jurisdiction as the assessee had shifted to Port Blair and had been filing returns there since AY 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the notices were issued to the Kolkata address despite the assessee's known residence in Port Blair. The Tribunal referenced the CBDT circular No. 228/2001, which clarified that the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, had jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Consequently, the assessment framed by JCIT, Range-37, Kolkata, was deemed invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order was quashed.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal addressed the delay of 2083 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay to several factors, including relocation, serious illness, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided and referenced the Supreme Court's liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" in condoning delays. Notably, the Tribunal considered the COVID-19 period and the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not intentional and condoned it, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed on the legal issue of jurisdiction, rendering the assessment invalid. Consequently, the merits of the case were not adjudicated. The order was pronounced in open court on January 5, 2024.

---