TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee on or before the time limit stipulated in the proviso to section 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, the assessment order is illegal, unjustified and void ab initio. 2. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that assessee in this case has been assessed by the Assessing Officer, Circle-47(1), New Delhi who is the Assessing Officer of the assessee and who has not issued and served the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings itself, the assessee had objected to the assessment proceedings being without statutory notice u/s 143(2) and had filed affidavit before the Assessing Officer claiming therein that no notice u/s 143(2) was served and in this respect our attention was invited to page 3 of the assessment order where the Assessing Officer himself has reproduced the affidavit filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer claimed that notice u/s 143(2) was duly issued and was served upon the assessee and he has scanned the receipt of the speed post along with tracking history of the envelope containing notice and has reproduced the same in the assessment order itself. The Ld. AR submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SC). It was submitted that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in absence of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessment becomes null and void. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court even dealt with the provisions of section 292BB and has held that even section 292BB cannot cure the defect of not serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. It was submitted that in the present case, the assessee before the Assessing Officer itself had objected to the assessment proceedings, because of non-service of notice and therefore, section 292BB is also not applicable to the assessee. 5. Without prejudice, it was argued that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer of Ward 34(1) u/s 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was submitted that official address of assessee is 1705, 3rd Floor, Onkar Bhawan, Bhagirath Place, Delhi- 110006 and jurisdiction of which lies with Circle 47(1), New Delhi and the jurisdiction at the time of issuance of notice also lied with such Circle 47(1) and our attention was invited to copy of jurisdiction chart extracted from the website of Income Tax Department placed at paper book page no. 301 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed by the Assessing Officer, Circle 47(1) is not valid and liable to be quashed. In this respect, reliance was placed on the following cases:- i. Shri Harvinder Singh Jaggi vs ACIT in ITA No.672/Del/2013 ii. KIE Infrastructures & Projects (P.) Ltd. vs ITO in IT Appeal No.23(Del) of 2012. iii. Cabbana Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No.183 and 526/Asr./2017). iv. Tata Sons Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No.4497 and 4542/Mum/2005) (Mum. Trib.) 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently argued that the arguments raised by the Ld. AR are baseless and are aimed at depriving the Revenue of its legitimate share. The Ld. DR filed a copy of letter written by the Assessing Officer, Circle 47(1) and also stated that complete assessment record was available with him. The Ld. DR filed a print out of PAN directory showing the address of the assessee and submitted that while filing PAN application, the assessee duly mentioned its address as B-37, Maharana Pratap Enclave, Pitampura Delhi-110034 and therefore as per the PAN records, notice u/s 143(2) was generated by the Assessing Officer where the PAN of the assessee lied which in the present case was Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is correct that the assessee obtained his PAN number by stating residential address as B-37, Maharana Pratap Enclave, Pitampura Delhi-110034. Print out of PAN directory showing the address and PAN number of the assessee is placed in page-4 of paper book filed by Revenue. Further, it is also correct that the assessee filed his return of income by stating therein address as 1705, 3rd Floor, Onkar Bhawan, Bhagirath Place, Delhi-110006, therefore, it is an undisputed fact that there is difference between the address mentioned in PAN data base as well as in the return of income filed by assessee. As per jurisdiction chart of Income Tax Department in Delhi, extracted from the website of Income Tax Department, placed at page book page 301 to 327, the jurisdiction of assessee as per his address in PAN application is with Assessing Officer Ward 39(1). The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, as per the address mentioned in the return of income is with Assessing Officer Circle No.47(1) who has passed the assessment order. The notice issued u/s 143(2) has been issued by the Assessing Officer Circle 34(1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not issued at the correct address. The fact that the said notice, sent by speed post, was not returned unserved, would be to no avail since the address given in the notice was not the last known address of the Assessee. 9. Mr. Sahni then submitted that it was incumbent on the Assessee to have got his changed address entered in the PAN Data Base failing which the AO would only go by the address given in the record of the relevant AY which in the case is AY 2001-02. 10. The Court is unable to agree with this submission. No provision in the Act has been shown to the Court which obliges the Assessee to ensure that his changed address is entered in the PAN Data Base failing which he is precluded from insisting on the notice under Section 148 being issued to him at the known address and being served upon him. In the present case, on facts, it is not in dispute that the AO was aware of the change of address of the Assessee and yet the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued at the older address. 11. Mr. Sahni submitted that the order of the CIT (A) notes the fact that a photocopy of the notice was given to the Assessee during the reassessment proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prescribed period of time, was issued only by DCIT-IV, Kanpur who had no jurisdiction over the case, as the DCIT-IV himself had transferred the case to DCIT-2, Kanpur vide memo dated 20.08.2015, a copy of which is placed at paper book Page 3. Therefore from the above facts and circumstances, it become apparent that the first Assessing Officer who issued notice on 30.09.2014 had no jurisdiction to assess the assessee and, therefore, he transferred the case to DCIT-2, Kanpur who though had jurisdiction to assess the assessee but issued notice u/s 143(2) only on 07.09.2015 by which date period for issuance of notice had expired. We further find that no order u/s 127 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer to transfer the case from Kanpur-4 to Kanpur-2. The Assessing Officer who had jurisdiction to assess the assessee issued notice u/s 143(2) only on 07.09.2015 which was beyond the prescribed time limit for issuance of such notice. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 143(2) by DCIT, Kanpur-2 beyond the statutory period of time is without jurisdiction and therefore, any order passed in consequence of such notice is also liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are in agreemen....