TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case, whether the learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of suppressed value of Rs. 54, 00, 000 and rejecting the estimation of the AO when it was gathered from the discrete enquiry that the assessee was collecting receipts from customers amounting to two lakhs fifty thousand rupees whereas receipt is issued of fifty thousand rupees only. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8, 75, 000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1, 81, 83, 759 towards increase in capital and deciding the matter based on return of income for the AY 2012-13, when the AO has submitted that return of income for the AY 2012-13 is invalid as per system and the CIT(A) has allowed assessee's appeal on this issue without verifying this aspect and without giving opportunity to the AO for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssional services to Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy, resident of No.32, Mathai Building, Officers Model Colony, Prashanth Nagara, T Dasarahalli, Bangalore, who is assessed to Income Tax under PAN ACOPN3645C. 2. That the professional services provided to the said Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy included filing of Incometax return, appearance before the assessing officer, etc. 3. That the Notice of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), Bengaluru, intimating the date of hearing on 26.12.2018 in respect of the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.1590/Bang/2018 was handed over to me by the said, Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy, for guidance and necessary action in the matter. 4. Since an appeal was not filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by the said Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy, I was under the bona fide impression that the respondent is required to appear before the Hon'ble Tribunal in response to the said Notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal and defend the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), insofar it is in favour of the said P.N.Krishnamurthy, and was not aware of the concept of filing Cross Objection (CO) under section 253(4) of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he address at Mohali, in the earlier years also, the returns of income were filed at the same address. Therefore the A.O. Ward-6(4) Mohali was having the jurisdiction upon the case of the assessee. In the present case the ACIT, Circle-1, Amritsar who was not having the jurisdiction over the assessee's case issued the notice under section 143(2) dt. 12/08/2016 therefore the said notice was beyond the jurisdiction. To resolve the present controversy it is necessary to discuss the provisions contained in Section 143(2) of the Act which reads as under: (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, 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, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plain language of that section from which it can be inferred that the same can be relied upon for curing a jurisdictional defect in the assessment notice, summons or other proceeding. In other 5 words, if the notice, summons or other proceeding taken by an authority suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his / its jurisdiction, the same cannot be cured by having resort to section 292B." 15. In the present case as I have already pointed out in the former part of this order that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued in prescribed time limit as per the proviso to section 143(2) of the Act by the A.O. having the jurisdiction upon the case of the assessee and the notice issued by the ACIT, Amritsar suffered from an inherent lacuna affecting his jurisdiction so the same could not be cured by having resort to the provisions of section 292B of the Act. Therefore, the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act, by the A.O. without issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the time limit prescribed in the proviso to section 143(2) of the Act was invalid and accordingly quashed." 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative, relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment application. Further, the A.O. Ward 6(2)(3) sent one more letter on 14.12.2015 posting the case for hearing on 23.12.2015 requesting to appear before him with all details as has been called for earlier, stating therein that failure to comply with the same, the assessment will be completed u/s 144 of the Act. However, on this occasion also the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any submission. Reading of the above shows that there was no cooperation by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, however, the assessee is challenging invalid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, before the CIT(A). According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted that the Section does not save complete absence of notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e necessary to look at the facts, for which a bird's eye view of the undisputed facts which are noted from the documents placed on record, aretabulated in the following chart. These facts are important to decide the legal issue before us. Sl. No. Date Events 1. Upto 08.10.2008 DCIT, Circle 15(1), New Delhi was the AO of assessee on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. 2. On 08.10.2008 CIT-V Delhi transferred the jurisdiction over the assessee's case u/s 127 to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. 3. From 09.10.2008 to 03.11.2017 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi was the AO of assessee for all proceedings under the Act. 4. 28.07.2016 ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi issued notice u/s 143(2) to the assessee. 5. 30.06.2017 ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi issued notice u/s 142(1) to the assessee. 6. 17.07.2017 Assessee objected to jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi. 7. 07.08.2017 Show Cause Notice / proposal for centralization of assessee's case at Kolkata issued by Pro.CIT-7, Delhi. 8. 16.08.2017 Assessee objected to the jurisdiction of Pr.CIT-7, New Delhi. 9. 24.10.2017 Pr.CIT, Central Patna issued Show Cause Notice for centralization of assessee's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the other income- tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income- tax authority authorized by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely: - (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein, - (a) authorize any Director General or Director to perform such functions of any other income- tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of (5) The directions and orders referred to in sub- secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the jurisdiction of different Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return under sub- section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 or subsection (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation: In section 120 and this section, the word "case", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO gets jurisdiction. Other than the assessees who are not in Business or Profession, in their cases, the AO will be vested with the jurisdiction if the person (assessee) is residing within the territorial area ear-marked by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 of the Act speaks about. However, when there is a question to be determined as to whether an AO has jurisdiction to assess any person then it would be decided by the authorities as stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 124 of the Act by Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned, as the case may be). In case, if the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Income tax authorities(Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as stipulated therein) then if the other Income-tax authority also agrees then the question will be resolved mutually or else it will be referred to the CBDT. So, once the AO of an assessee is vested with the jurisdiction u/s. 124 read with sec. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, of the AO to whom the case of an assessee is proposed to be transferred, agrees for the transfer, then the transfer can made u/s. 127(2)(a) of the Act. In case however there is any disagreement between such stipulated authorities, the matter is required to be referred to the Board which in turn decides the issue of transfer or the Board can then authorize an Income Tax authority by a notification as stipulated in clause (b) of sub-sec.(2) of section 127 of the Act. Sub-section(4) of Section 127 of the Act provides that upon the transfer of case by the authorities specified in sub-section (1) or (2) of section 127 of the Act, any stage of the proceedings shall not render the re-issue of any notice already issued by the AO or AOs from whom the case is transferred. In other words, Section 127(4) saves the actions of the AO from whom the case is transferred and allows the AO to whom the case of an assessee is transferred to take forward the proceedings from the point where the earlier jurisdictional AO had left. Here, it would be important to note the Explanation to section 127 defines the expression 'case'. A reading of the said Expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue orders/directions vesting the jurisdiction of assessment over the authorities subordinate to it. The said Assessing Officer at New Delhi enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction over the appellant upto 08.10.2008. Thereafter, by virtue of order u/s 127(2) passed by the ld. CIT-V, Delhi dated 08.10.2008, the said AO at New Delhi was divested of his jurisdiction over the appellant and the jurisdiction stood transferred in favour of ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. From the plain reading of the order u/s 127(2) dated 08.10.2008, we find that the transfer of jurisdiction over the appellant's case from the charge of ACIT, 15(1), New Delhi to ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi was absolute and without reserving any right of concurrent jurisdiction over the appellant at New Delhi. 17. Before us the Ld. CIT, DR vehemently contented that since the present assessee's principal office is at New Delhi, the AO, Delhi continued to have jurisdiction as per sec. 124 read with sec. 120(1) or (2) of the Act and the ACIT, Circle 21(1), Delhi's action of issuing the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was saved by sub-sec. (5) of section 124 of the Act read with sub-section (4) of sec. 127 of the Act. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the definition of "case" as set out in the Explanation to Section 127 of the Act, then it means that when a Chief Commissioner or Commissioner makes an order for transfer of jurisdiction in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 127 of the Act, from an AO who is vested with jurisdiction by virtue of direction/order issued under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 120 of the Act to another AO who is not vested with such jurisdiction as per direction/order issued u/s. 120(1) and (2) of the Act; then by virtue of such transfer order u/s. 127 of the Act, the jurisdiction of an AO u/s. 124 vested by virtue of an order/direction vested on an AO as per sec. 120(1) or (2) of the Act is taken away and thus the original AO is divested of the jurisdiction enjoyed u/s. 124 read with sub-sec. (1) or (2) of section 120 of the Act. We therefore hold that contention put forth by the ld. CIT, DR that provisions of Section 124(5) being overriding in nature, the ACIT Circle 21(1), New Delhi simultaneously held concurrent jurisdiction is devoid of any merit. Such interpretation is not in accord with the extant provisions of Section 124(5) read with Section 127 of the Act. In our opinion once an or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t come to the rescue of the department. As noted earlier, the AO, Delhi ceased to be AO of assessee after the transfer order was passed by CIT-V, Delhi on 08.10.2008, so after such order by the competent authority (which fact is not disputed before us), then the CIT, Delhi became functus officio and by virtue of it even his subordinate authority i.e. AO, Delhi was also divested of the jurisdiction. For the reasons as discussed in the foregoing therefore we hold that in the given facts of the case, the appellant's case was not saved by the provisions of Section 124(5) as also by Section 127(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the contentions of the Ld. CIT, DR are rejected being devoid of any merit in law as well as on facts. 20. Coming to the next argument of the Ld. CIT, DR that jurisdiction is an administrative issue and not a 'subject matter' open for judicial intervention, we note that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (infra) clearly held that, "The jurisdiction over the subject-matter has to be conferred by law. The jurisdiction in this case had been transferred by the order dated 3rd September, 2012 by no other than the CIT Kolkata- II, Kolkata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... locality or place (see sub-section (3) of section 127 of the Act)] and at this juncture, we would like to remind that in the present case at hand, the assessee was given an opportunity to be heard by Commissioner at Delhi before he proposed the transfer of assessee's case to AO at Ranchi and the assessee had objected to the transfer which is found available in the paper book. After considering the assessee's objections, the Commissioner at Delhi transferred the case of assessee from AO at Delhi to AO at Ranchi. In the circumstances therefore, as discussed above, once transfer of the case of the assessee is ordered u/s. 127 of the Act, the AO who was vested with the jurisdiction by virtue of the direction or order issued under subsection (1) or (2) of sec. 120 and section 124 of the Act stood divested of the same. As held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (infra), since the jurisdiction was divested of the earlier AO by virtue of transfer order u/s. 127 of the Act, the earlier AO, which in this case is AO at Delhi (DCIT. Circle -15, New Delhi) ceased to be Assessing Officer after the date of transfer i.e. 08.10.2008 and ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecisions. We however note that the case laws relied on by the Ld. CIT, DR were factually distinguishable. In these decisions the Courts were called upon to examine the implications arising from the provisions of Section 120 and 124 of the Act and the facts of these cases did not involve orders under Section 127 of the Act in terms of which the AO holding territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 124 read with Section 120(1) & (2) was specifically divested of his jurisdiction by the competent authority and the jurisdiction was conferred on some other officer after complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 127 of the Act. Instead we find that a similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT wherein the factual matrix governing the issue of jurisdiction was similar. In that case the question was whether the Commissioner who usurped the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act could have validly done so, once he himself had passedan order u/s 127 of the Act in terms of which assessee's case stood transferred. The facts of the said case M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT can be summarized as follows....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he files from the incumbent AO to the new AO had taken place only on 29.7.2013 and further the order sought to be revised by the ld.CIT u/s 263 was passed much prior to the even making of request for transfer of jurisdiction in respect of search matters, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that only the CIT Kolkata II, Kolkata had the jurisdiction to revise the assessment order passed u/s147 as has been done in this case. The contention of the learned AR in this regard is held to be without substance and not unacceptable." 24. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee M/s.Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, Calcutta wherein the following question of law raising the jurisdictional issue similar to that raised by the assessee before us, was framed as under:- "Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, had jurisdiction over the appellant at the time of issue of the Show Cause notice on 18th March, 2013 and passing of the order on 26th March, 2013 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of transfer of jurisdiction to the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by his order dated 3rd September, 2012 with immediate effect. Mr.Podder contended that CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata thereafter had no longer any jurisdiction left with him to be exercised in respect of the return or returns filed by the assessee or assessments made. He submitted that the exercise of power was not only ex parte, without notice, but was also without jurisdiction. He drew our attention to the letter dated 18th March, 2013 received by his client from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which is a notice under section 143(2) pertaining to the assessment year 2012-2013. He submitted that the order dated 3rd September, 2012 transferring jurisdiction to a ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata had already become operative and was also acted upon.Therefore, CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata could not have exercised jurisdiction.The impugned order passed by him is altogether without jurisdiction and is, therefore, a nullity. He drew our attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pandurang and Others versus State of Maharashtra reported in (1986) 4 SCC436for the proposition that even a right order by a wrong forum is a nullity. In the aforesaid judgment their Lordship h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rival submissions. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to restrict the order of transfer, for the simple reason that the order of transfer in this case was not a restricted one. Reading the order dated 3rd September, 2012 as a whole, it does not appear that any restricted transfer was sought to be made for any particular year or years or otherwise. The order of transfer, as we have already indicated, was passed in the interest of revenue for better coordination, effective investigative and meaningful assessment. The actual transfer of files may have taken place on 29th July, 2013 but admitted position is that a notice under Section 143(2) by the transferee assessing officer was issued on 18th March, 2013. The existence of files does not confer the jurisdiction when the same has validly been transferred and also acted upon. The jurisdiction over the subject-matter has to be conferred by law. The jurisdiction in this case had been transferred by the order dated 3rd September, 2012 by no other than the CIT Kolkata- II, Kolkata himself. Once that was done CIT Kolkata - II, Kolkata lost the seisin over the matter. He became 'functus offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Registration Act nor in the Stamp Act is there any provision giving to the registering officer any power to examine whether an instrument already registered was or was not duly stamped and to impound it. As soon as the registering officer registers a document presented to him for registration, the function in the performance of which the document was produced before him is over and thereafter becomes functus officio having no power under section 33 to impound the instrument. The matter is really concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR1961SC787 That was a case where the question arose whether the Collector has any power to impound an instrument sent to him for adjudication under section 31 of the Stamp Act. The Supreme Court held that under that section the Collector had no such power, as the provision gave him the power only to give his opinion as regards the duty with which in his judgment the instrument was chargeable and when that function was performed by the Collector he became functus officio. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the power to impound only exists when an instrument is produced befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... review his own decision." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn., p.673) gives its meaning as follows: "Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority." We may first refer to the position with reference to civil courts. Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with judgment and decree. Rule 1 explains when a judgment is pronounced. Sub-rule (1) provides that the court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open court either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the court shall fix a day for that purpose of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. Subrule (3) provides that the judgment may be pronounced by dictation in an open court to a shorthand writer [if the Judge is specially empowered (sic by the High Court) in this behalf].The proviso thereto provides that where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such corrections as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 263 and the consequent order dated 26th March, 2013 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act were acts without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity. For the aforesaid reasons the question No.(a) is answered in the negative. The point is, thus decided in favour of the assessee.The appeal stands allowed." (Emphasis given by us) 28. From the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, we understand that in this case after the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 03.09.2012 was passed by the CIT-2, Kolkata, he became functus officio and therefore the Hon'ble High Court held that he could not have exercised jurisdiction over the assessee's case u/s. 263 of the Act and consequently therefore he erred in passing an order dated 26.03 2013 u/s 263 setting aside the order of the ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata dated 21.05.2010. 29. Coming back to the case in hand, and having taken note of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), we note that in the present case, after the order of the CIT-V, New Delhi dated 08.10.2008 transferring the jurisdiction of the assessee's case to DCIT, Central Circle, Ranchi, the CIT, Delhi became functus officio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the reopening by the ITO Ward 3(3) Delhi. The notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued by the ITO Delhi after receipt of approval from Additional CIT Delhi on 25-03-2010. However the CIT Delhi had passed an order u/s. 127 transferring the file to Kolkata on 4-1-2010 as such on 25-3-2010 the AO in Delhi did not have jurisdiction over the case, hence the reopening it without jurisdiction as it is based on the notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 issued by the ITO Delhi. We have requested the AO at Kolkata to issue the copy of the order of 127 and 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but the same has not been issued yet. We therefore request you to either, call for the records and adjudicate the validity of reopening or grant an adjournment of 15 days to obtain certified copies of all related records so that we can represent the matter properly." The CIT(A) sent this written submission to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vide letter No. CIT(A)-VI/Kol/Remand/2011-12/368 dated 20-02-2010 and the AO sent its remand report vide letter No. Wd6(1)/Kol/ChanakyaFinvest/11-12/826 dated 23-04-2010, which is as under: "Kindly refer to your letter No. CIT(A)-VI/Kol/Remand Report/2011-12/368 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of issuance of notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer of New Delhi or initiation/continuation of assessment proceedings by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings even when the authorised representative attended the proceedings on 08-12-2010 and 16-12-2010. The authorised representative asked for the extension of time from Assessing Officer on 20-12-2010 but did not file any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and did not attend the proceedings thereafter. The assessment has been completed on 29-12-2010. 9. The Income-tax Officer, Ward (1) has submitted that the case records were not transferred to him and was still lying with ITO Ward 3(3), New Delhi on the date of issuance of notice u/s 148. In the absence of the transfer of case records, the jurisdiction is not transferred automatically since the ITO Ward 6(1), Kolkata did not know about the order passed u/s 127 by the Commissioner of Income-tax1, New Delhi." And further, he decided the issue by dismissing the assessee's issue of reopening u/s. 148 of the Act, vide ground Nos. 17 to 20 as under: "17. The assessee had never q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case, it is held that the assessment order passed u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act 1961 is not without jurisdiction and is as per law and hence the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be a valid order. In the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings u/s 148 of the I T Act 1961 is upheld to be valid in absence of any objection being raised before the Assessing Officer issuing the notice u/s 148 and/or completing the assessment. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is also held that appellant was given proper opportunity after serving the notice u/s 148 and during assessment by the Assessing Officer. Hence, these three grounds of appeal are dismissed." Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. First of all, it is to be seen that what is the chronology of events, as recorded by the AO in his remand report given, during course of appellate proceedings before CIT(A). The chronology of events is as under: Date Happening 1. 04-01-10 Order u/s l27 passed by the Ld. CIT, Delhi-I, New Delhi. 2. 23-03-10 Proposal to re-open the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat will be the effect of the order of Commissioner of Income-tax transferring the jurisdiction u/s. 127 of the Act. We are of the view, that when any case of a particular assessee which is transferred from one AO to another AO, whether within the state or without it, all proceedings which are pending against the assessee under the Act in respect of the same year as also previous years are meant to be transferred simultaneously and all proceedings under the Act which may be commenced after the date of such transfer in respect of any year whatever are also included therein, so that the AO to whom such case is transferred would be in a position to continue the pending proceedings and also institute further proceedings against the assessee in respect of any year. The proceedings pending at the date of transfer can be thus continued but in the case of such proceedings the provisions in regard to issuance of notices contained in the main body of section 127(2) of the Act would apply and it would not be necessary to reissue any notice already issued by AO from whom the case is transferred. For this, assessee has relied on the decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Lt. Col.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....New Delhi issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25-03-2010 is invalid because the jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi by CIT-1, Delhi to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata. At the time of passing of order by CIT-1, Delhi transferring jurisdiction from ITO, Ward3(3), New Delhi dated 04-01-2010 to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata, there is no proceedings pending before the ITO, Delhi and the transfer order for jurisdiction was passed on that date. The CIT, Delhi-1 passed order u/s. 127 of the Act on 01-01-2010 transferring the jurisdiction of the assessee to ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata and the jurisdiction in respect to every action for all assessment years lies with the ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata and only he is competent to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi is bad and illegal in view of the clear provisions of the Act because an order for transfer of case was validly made by CIT and the purpose for transfer was simply that all future proceedings are to be taken by ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata w.e.f. 04-01-2010. Hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2010 is quashed. 9. In the result, appeal of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply filed by the DCIT-10(1) Mumbai dated 8.10.2012 it is stated that by a corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012, the CIT-10 Mumbai has temporarily withdrawn/cancelled the earlier transfer order dated 22.11.2011 for the sake of administrative convenience and therefore, the notice dated 30.03.2012 would be valid. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any notice to pass a corrigendum order was issued to the petitioner nor the alleged corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 has been served upon the petitioner till date. 8. Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel for the Revenue on instruction from CIT-10 Mumbai informs us that there is no proof of serving the corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 upon the petitioner. It is neither the case of the revenue that before passing the corrigendum any notice was issued to the petitioner nor it is the case of the revenue that the corrigendum order was passed after hearing the petitioner. 9. Although in the affidavit in reply the revenue claims to have annexed a copy of the corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 no such order was in fact annexed to the affidavitin-reply. It is only during the course of hearing the Counsel for the revenue admitted the lapse and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not befit ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to indulge in circumventing the provisions of law and we strongly condemn the conduct of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai in that behalf. Instead of bringing to book the persons who circumvent the provisions of law, the ACIT-10(1) Mumbai has himself indulged in circumventing the provisions of law which is totally disgraceful. 15. In any event, the CIT-10 Mumbai ought not to have succumbed to the unjust demands of ACIT10(1) and instead ought to have admonished the ACIT-10(1) for making such unjust request. The CIT-10 Mumbai ought to have known that there is no provision under the Act which empowers the CIT to temporarily withdraw the order passed by him under Section 127(2) of the Act for the sake of administrative convenience or otherwise. If the CIT-10 Mumbai was honestly of the opinion that the order passed under Section 127(2) of the Act was required to be recalled for any valid reasons, then, the CIT-10 Mumbai ought to have issued notice to that effect to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner ought to have passed any order as he deemed fit and serve the same to the petitioner. 16. In the present case, admittedly, the CIT-10 Mumbai has not iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide on the part of the assessee not to intimate the AO at Noida prior to 31.03.2016 and that the assessee waited for the period of limitation to expire before raising this objection. In absence of any order u/s 127 and having noted that with reference to address made available by the assessee to ICICI Bank in which cash deposits were found, the Hon'ble High Court held that assessee was debarred from raising the objection to AO's jurisdiction in terms of section 124(3)(b). In the instant case, however, the appellant had mentioned its PAN in the return of income filed for AY 2015- 16. By virtue of the order u/s 127 dated 08.10.2008, it was within the knowledge of the AO at Delhi that the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee solely vested with AO at Ranchi in the month of June 2016. On these facts we therefore find that the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra) is not applicable because the factual context in which it was rendered was vastly different. 33. Similarly, in the case of S.S. Ahluwalia (supra), the assessee was assessed at Delhi from 1980-81 to 1983-84. From the assessment year 1984-85 to 1987-88, filed his returns at Dimapur. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there being valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In our opinion such an order is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that issue of a legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for usurping jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not a curable defect. This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal(108 taxmann.com 183). The relevant observations are as follows: "5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case2 the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:- "3. The Appellate Tribunal held, while affirming the decision of CIT (A) that non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) is only a procedural irregularity and the same is curable. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the Gauhati High Court, the following two questions of law were raised for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act that the notice was - (a) Not served upon him; or (b) Not served upon him in time; or (c) Served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment." 7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner. According to Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate, since the Respondent had participated in the proceedings, the provisions of Section 29....