TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to raise additional ground. 3. Said application is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: "Since relevant facts are narrated and admitted in first para of AO's order same are not repeated for sake of brevity. To put briefly, it is admitted by Ld AO in impugned order in very first para that first jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) dated 28/08/2012 taking return u/s 139(1) filed with Gurgaon Jurisdiction & Addresss (on 26/07/2011) was issued by ITO Ward 2(1) Ghaziabad which was later transferred without any valid and statutory order u/s 127 to ITO Ward II (3) Gurgaon in May 2013 whereafter Gurgaon AO issued notice u/s 142/143(3) on 15/05/2013. Since it is admitted by internal transfer between Ghaziabad and Gurgaon ITO's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he root of the matter and pertains to assumption of jurisdiction (here jurisdiction to frame assessment is assailed). On basis of above stated Apex court verdicts and Gujarat high court decision in case of PV Doshi 113 ITR 22, since appellant was not guided about its right to challenge the legality of assessment proceedings at earlier stages before lower authorities by then representing counsel, so in view of over whelming jurisprudence squarely covering the instant issue in assessee favor from Delhi, Allahabad and P&H high courts and Delhi ITAT which is enclosed here with this application, on identical and similar assessment being jettisoned and disapproved, your honors leave is humbly sought to raise following legal ground: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 13/05/2013 (as per facts admitted in assessment order that the jurisdiction lies with Gurgaon officer); d. notice under section 143(2) issued by ITO Ward II(3) Gurgaon on 15/05/2013 6. On basis of aforesaid chronology of events, it was vehemently pleaded by Ld Counsel of the assessee that impugned order passed by assessing officer, as confirmed by ld. CIT(A), deserves to be quashed, on two legal aspects namely that impugned assessment framed on basis of notice issued under section 143(2) by ITO Ward II(3) Gurgaon on 15/05/2013 is bad as said notice is time barred as same could be issued up to 30 of September 2012 that is 6 months from the end of the financial year in which return of income is filed, here return was filed on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould issue the notice under section 143(2). Moreover, according to Ld counsel of the assessee since facts of present case are identical to the case of Al Faheem Meatex Exports Pvt Ltd (supra) following the same present assessment order deserves to be quashed. Further he emphasized on categorical requirement of section 127 for transferring file between officers where different chief commissioners are involved that not only proper order must be passed but also they must be positive requirement between the 2 competent authorities which was glaringly missing in present case. On basis of this Ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed for quashing of the proceedings. 8. After carefully hearing the rival contentions in light of facts narrated above I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of statute, the resultant assessment framed would be treated as nullity. In present facts notice issued by right jurisdictional officer, namely ITO, Ward II(3) Gurgaon on 15/05/2013 after time barring date on 30/09/2012 as counted from return filing date on 26/07/2011 is patently illegal and unlawful and cannot be sustained. Accordingly on this short count itself the assessment framed by the assessing officer is quashed. The same facts were in the case of Al Faheem Meatex Exports Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein this Tribunal at para No. 6 has upheld the same plea raised by the assessee by holding that provisions of section 124(3) does not come to the rescue of the revenue because in the present case assessee is filed return of income showing the ....