TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006 declaring income at Rs.-NIL-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 23rd October, 2007. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) at an income of Rs. 63 lakhs by ITO, Ward-13(1), New Delhi, on 30th December, 2008, wherein addition of Rs. 63 lakhs was made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, on account of amount received by assessee from one Shri Jagmohan Sharma which was considered by the A.O. as unexplained. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed. Thereafter, assessee filed appeal before ITAT and the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 2.1. In view of these facts, the matter was taken-up for hearing. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ITO, Ward- 1(1), Faridabad, transferred the file to ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi, who was having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. The impugned assessment order has been passed by ITO, Ward- 13(1), New Delhi, who issued the notice under section 143(2) on 28th July, 2008, which was beyond the statutory period. Therefore, he did not get any valid jurisdiction to frame the assessment against the assessee because it was issued after more than 19 months after the expiry of the statutory period. The assessee relied upon several decisions in support of its contention that when notice under section 143(2) have not been issued by the jurisdictional A.O. within the statutory period, the assessment order would be null and void. In this case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st day of June, 2003;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: [Provided that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.] Thus, from the above provisions of law it is clear that statutory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the limitation provided as per statute and the first notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued by an AO who was not having any jurisdiction over the case of the appellant company. I accordingly hold that the assessment made by the I.T.O., Ward - 13 (1), New Delhi, on the basis of notice issued by ITO, Ward 1(1), Faridabad is void because it is settled law that assumption of jurisdiction as per law is sine qua non. In view of the aforesaid discussion, jurisdiction to make assessment and to make variation in the return filed by the appellant has not been assumed by the AO as per law. As a result, the consequent assessment framed u/s 143(3) is also bad in law and deserves to be quashed. To arrive at the above conclusion, 1 have no reason to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad issued notice under section 143(2) on 23rd October, 2007, who was having no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. The ITO at Delhi issued notice under section 143(2) on 28th July, 2008 which was beyond the period prescribed under the Law. It is, therefore, clear that the A.O. having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee did not issue notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee within the period of limitation provided under the Act. Therefore, the first notice issued by ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, having no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee would not be valid and would not get any jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. The contention of the Ld. D.R. has no merit that ITO, Ward-1(1), F....