Assessment quashed for lack of territorial jurisdiction despite revenue's objection to belated challenge

ITAT Kolkata quashed an assessment conducted in Kolkata for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The assessee had filed returns in Surat as per CBDT notification No.50 of 2014 defining jurisdiction by postal PIN. Despite revenue's contention that territorial jurisdiction cannot be challenged at belated stage, ITAT relied on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. precedent allowing additional grounds before tribunal. Department records confirmed assessee's jurisdiction was in Surat only. Assessment suffered from jurisdictional defect and was quashed. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction based on CBDT notification.

Analysis:
The assessee challenged the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction based on a CBDT notification defining jurisdiction as per postal PIN. The appellant filed the return in Surat, but the assessment was done in Kolkata. The tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee, citing relevant case laws. The tribunal found that the impugned assessment in Kolkata lacked territorial jurisdiction, as evidenced by the CBDT notification and the department's records. The tribunal referred to a previous order by a co-ordinate bench to support its decision.

Analysis:
The tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the jurisdiction issue. The appellant's representative provided evidence that the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from one CIT to another based on a CBDT notification. The tribunal found that the change in jurisdiction was valid and that the Assessing Officer in Kolkata did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Citing a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, the tribunal held that the impugned order passed without valid jurisdiction was not maintainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal on technical grounds and did not address the remaining issues raised by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the impugned assessment due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal's decision was based on the CBDT notification and the subsequent change in jurisdiction, rendering the impugned order invalid. As a result, the issues raised on merits were deemed infructuous, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---