TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are absolutely is at initio void, ultra vires and null in law" 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the assessee. He submitted that the jurisdiction of the assessee was with ITO, Kolkata as the returned income was filed with total income of Rs.19,27,470/- which is below the total income limit of Rs.20 lakh. For this, he relied on instruction no.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011. He pointed out that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was also issued by the ACIT, Circle- 31, Kolkata who had no jurisdiction over the case. Thus he submitted that the assessment is bad in law. In support of this contention he relied on the following case laws: i. Shri Sukumar Chandra Sahoo, Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle-27,Haldia, Purba Medinipur, ITA 2073/KOL/2016 dated 27.09.2017. ii. K.A.Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.,Ward-8(3), Kolkata, ITA 1149/KOL/2019 dated 22.01.2020. iii. Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1, HALDIA, Purba Medinipur, ITA 1153/KOL/2015 dated 18.11.2016. 4. On merits he submitted that the assessment was selected for scr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and case laws cited, I hold as follows. 8. The first issue is jurisdiction. The undisputed fact is that jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the ITO and not with the ACIT for the reason that the returned income is below 20 lakh. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury (supra) wherein this circular of the Board dated 31.01.2011 was considered and thereafter it was held as follows: "8.1 In view of above we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities by squashing the order of the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act since the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not done by the ITO as specified in CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. As the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act have been held as invalid, therefore in our considered view the other issues raised by the assessee do not require any adjudication. Hence the ground raised by the assessee is allowed." 9. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Sukumar Chandra Sahoo (supra) on a similar issue at para 4.5 and 6 held as follows: "4. Brief facts of the case ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal of the above Instruction of the CBDT it is evident that the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred by the CBDT on ITOs is in respect to the 'non corporate returns' filed where income declared is only upto Rs. 15 lacs ; and the ITO doesn't have the jurisdiction to conduct assessment if it is above Rs. 15 lakhs. Above Rs. 15 lacs income declared by a noncorporate person i.e. like assessee, the pecuniary jurisdiction lies before AC/DC. In this case, admittedly, the assessee an individual (non corporate person) who undisputedly declared income of Rs. 50,28,040/- in his return of income cannot be assessed by the ITO as per the CBDT circular (supra). From a perusal of the assessment order, it reveals that the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the then ITO, Ward-1, Haldia on 06.09.2013 and the same was served on the assessee on 19.09.2013 as noted by the AO. The AO noted that since the returned income is more than Rs. 15 lacs the case was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1, Haldia to ACIT, Circle-27 and the same was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014 and immediately ACIT issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed. Since we have quashed the assessment and the appeal of assessee is allowed on the legal issue, the other grounds raised by the assessee need not to be adjudicated because it is only academic. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed." 10. Applying the propositions of law laid down in these case laws to the facts of this case we have to necessarily hold that the notice issued to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld. ACIT, Circle-31, Kolkata was without jurisdiction. Hence the assessment framed in pursuant to this notice is bad in law. The appeal has to be allowed on this ground. 11. On the issue of addition/disallowance made beyond the CASS criteria, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sh. Vijay Kumar (supra) order dated 12.09.2019 held as follows: "5. I find that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, thus, being exceeding his jurisdiction are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted." 12. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee was for the limited purpose of verifying the following: i. Contract Receipts/Fees Mismatch ii. Bonus or....