TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16 (whereas no order dated 01.05.2017 was passed) inspite of the fact that PCIT was himself not present on 13.10.2017 in his office is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed. 2. That the show cause notice has been issued to verify three issues (i) about salary income of Rs. 9.90 Lacs received by the assessee, (ii) genuineness about claim of exemption on long term capital gain of Rs. 49.28 Lacs on sale of shares of Channel Nine (iii) the AO failed to inquire about the person who purchased shares at the rate of Rs. 439 per share and whether the same is properly accounted for in the books of accounts of the buyer. During assessment, the assessee filed complete detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order under section 143(3) to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, despite the order itself being bad in law and liable to be quashed. (ii). That the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law, having been passed in pursuance of proceedings initiated by issue of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, by an officer who did not have jurisdiction on the case of the assessee. (iii) That the statutory notice under section 143(2) issued by the jurisdiction Assessing Officer, who has also passed the assessment Order, is, otherwise, barred by limitation. 3. The return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 was e-filed on 2/9/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 8,76,900/-. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Circle 25(2) for the assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year who finally passed the order. The first notice u/s. 143(2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Circle 25(2) was dated 10/3/2017. Thus, the notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Circle 25(2) dated 10/3/2017 is barred by limitation. In this manner, the proceedings u/s. 143(3) for the relevant assessment year as well as the order passed in consequence thereto are bad in law. Since, in the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) dated 2/5/2017, no additions were made the applicant did not have any occasion to raise this issue of lack of jurisdiction before any of the appellate authorities. Therefore, the Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) g) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan Civil Appeal 5009 of 2016 dated 11.05.2016 (SC). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR pointed out certain documents such as Return of Income filed by the assessee on 02.09.2015, Notice dated 01.08.2016 under Section 143(2) issued by ITO, Ward 72(5), Letter dated 20.12.2016 filed by the assessee pointing out the correct jurisdiction of the DCIT, Circle 25(2) and not that of ITO, Ward 72(5). Besides this, the Ld. AR also pointed out notice dated 10.03.2017 under Section 143(2) issued by DCIT, Circle 25(2) and the letters dated 27.03.2017, 13.04.2017 addressed by the assessee to DCIT, Circle 25(2). It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 9. Despite the technical aspects wherein the assessee succeeds in her additional grounds, we have also looked into the merits of the case and it is found that letter dated 13.04.2017 filed by the assessee along with the documents pertaining to purchase and sale of shares, purchase of Euro Gold, Purchase of Channel Nine Shares, Copy of purchase bills & contract notes for Euro Gold, Statement of Accounts in Amrapali Trading and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Copy of Purchase Bill for Channel Nine Shares dated 22.03.2013 & Transaction Statement from Adroitt Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. were produced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the notice which was issued by the Principal CIT stating therein that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the....