TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... her return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31/10/2015, declaring total income of Rs. 18,35,410/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26/01/2017 determining total income of Rs. 31,05,410/- interalia making an addition of Rs. 12,70,000/-, on the ground that the cash deposits in the bank account were not explained. Hence these cash credits and added u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal without success. 3. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before me, disputing the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed an additional ground of appeal. The application for admission of additional ground, reads as follows:- "1. That your appellant had preferred the inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground may please be granted in this regard. 4. That your appellant has a strong prima facie case. The balance of convenience strongly favours your appellant in passing an order of admission of the additional ground. Your appellant will suffer irreparable injury if the prayer is refused." 5. After hearing rival contentions, I admit this additional ground as it is a legal ground, raising a jurisdictional issue and does not require any investigation into the facts. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per Board Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dt. 31/01/2011, the jurisdiction of the assessee is with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur, as the assessee is a non-corporate assessee an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no dispute in the fact that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt. 29/09/2016 has been issued by the ITO, Wd-1(1), Durgapur. Later, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the ACIT on 11/08/2017. Thereafter, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of this case and who had completed the assessment on 26/12/2017 i.e., ACIT, Circle-1(1), Durgapur. Under these circumstances, the question is whether the assessment is bad in law for want of issual of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 9. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Sukumar Ch. Sahoo vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2073/Kol/2016 order dt. 27.09.2017, held as follows:- "5. From a perusal of the above Instruction of the CBDT it is evident....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 50,28,040/-. As per the CBDT Instruction the monetary limits in respect to an assessee who is an individual which falls under the category of 'non corporate returns' the ITO's increased monetary limit was upto Rs. 15 lacs; and if the returned income is above Rs. 15 lacs it was the AC/DC. So, since the returned income by assessee an individual is above Rs. 15 lakh, then the jurisdiction to assess the assessee lies only by AC/DC and not ITO. So, therefore, only the AC/DC had the jurisdiction to assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 9.1. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishnendu Chowdhury vs. ITO reported in [2017] 78 taxmann.com 89 (Kolkata-Trib.) held as follows:- "Return of income of assessee was Rs. 12 lakhs - As per CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income-tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Haldia and none other - But, notice was issued by Asstt. Commissioner, Circle Haldia much after CBDT's instruction and knowing fully well that he had no jurisdiction over assessee - Whether, therefore, notice issued by Asstt. Commissioner was invalid and consequently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 292BB would be a complete answer. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Vijaywargia, learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondent submitted that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was never issued which was evident from the orders passed on record as well as the stand taken by the Appellant in the memo of appeal. It was further submitted that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act being prerequisite, in the absence of such notice, the entire proceedings would be invalid. 8. The law on the point as regards applicability of the requirement of not....