TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following ground: - "1. Because, ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the assessment order which is wholly jurisdiction and void ab initio." 3. Briefly stated facts relating to the above issue are that the assessee filed e-return of income on 26.08.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed copies of return income along with audit report under section 44AB, profit and loss account, balance sheet along with the schedules with the Assessing Officer. The AO noted that the assessee filed e-return income on 26.08.2009 with the ITO, Ward 2 Panvel. Accordingly, the return of income was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee vide ITO Ward-2, Panvel on 20.08.2010 and 27.09.2010. The same was served by registered post AD on 27.08.2010 upon the assessee. Once again, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 27.09.2010 was served on the assessee by ITO Ward-2 Panvel through notice server, which were served on 29.09.2010. Accordingly, the assessee raised objection regarding jurisdiction stating that the assessee's jurisdiction lies with ACIT, DCIT Central Circle, Thane co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diction transferred to ACIT Order under section 127 transferring jurisdiction from Thane to ITO ward 2, Panvel. Decentralization Effect On a combined reading of notice _+ order under section 127 it is clear that ACIT, Panvel acquired jurisdiction over appellant wef 20/05.2011, therefore, notices under section 143(2) issued by ITO, Panvel Prior to said date were invalid, leading to the impugned assessment order becoming null & void ab initio. 26.09.2011 Notices under section 143(2) issued by ACIT Panvel, which was time barred. Case laws on jurisdiction 1. Kie infrastructure & projects vs. Income TAx Officer (2015) 154 ITD 280 (Delhi _Trib) 2. Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd vs. DY Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (1), Pune 2017 (10) TMI 48 - ITAT Pune (para 11 & 13) 3. As per case law of synopsis submitted Date Events AY 2008-09 Order u/s 143(3) passed by DCIT, CC-1, Thane dt 28.12.2010 (PB-113) 26.09.2009 Return of income filed 20.08.2010 Notice u/s 143(2) from ITO Ward 2 Panvel 27.09.2010 Notice under section 143(2) from ITO Ward 2 Pavel, 08.10.2010 Our objection regarding jurisdiction, i.e. presently jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the jurisdiction on basis of section 120 of the Act is to he challenged within 30 days. However, the instant ease is under section 127 of the Act. In this case the Jurisdiction as transferred u/s 127 of Act before CIT-Central Circle-Thane. In accordance with said transfer order, the DCIT-CC- Thane initiated assessment proceedings for AY 2008-09. However, subsequently ITO Ward-2, Panvel initiated assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10 before obtaining an order u/s 127 of the Act decentralizing the change of the assessee. The Ld Counsel relied on decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cuminus Ltd vs DCIT (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Del.) to submit that once the proper officer exercised the jurisdiction, the subsequent notice by an officer not so authorized is invalid. In view of this discussion, we are of the view that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction. As regards to the one argument of the DR that the returned filed by the assessee was with ITO Ward-2, Panvel is of no consequence because under e-filing system for filing of return, the automatic return will go to the territorial ITO of the assessee and not to the proper jurisdiction where th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20/05.2011 24/08/2011 30/09/2011 17/01/2012 Notice under section 143(2) issued by ITO ward 2, Panvel instead of ACIT which was without jurisdiction. Expiry of time limit for issuance of notice under section 143(2) Notice under section 143(2) issued by ACIT Circle Panvel which was time barred 04/01/2013 Case assigned to JCIT by CIT-II Thane by letter No. THN/ CIT-II/ 127(20/ 2012-13/2440 22/03/2013 Order under section 143(3) passed by JCIT Pavel. Conclusion For AY 2010-11, original notice under section 143(2) was without jurisdiction, rendering the impugned assessment null & Void. Notice dated 17.02.2012 issued by ACIT was time barred, so no cognizance can be taken of the same 11. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that on a combined reading of the notification and order it is clear that ACIT Panvel acquired jurisdiction on the assessee's case with effect from 20.05.2011. Thus the original notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was without jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order null & void. The notice dated I 7.01.2012 issued by ACIT was time barred, so no cognizance can he taken of the same. She further argued that regarding d....