TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in filing this appeal. Since we are inclined to take up the main appeal itself for hearing, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The application, IA NO.GA/1/2017 [OLD No:GA/608/2017] stands disposed of accordingly. RE: ITAT/58/2017 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 20.7.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos.1621 & 1301/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for our consideration. a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing officer considers it necessary and expedient to ensure that tax is paid in accordance with law, he should call upon the assessee to produce evidence before him to ensure that the tax is paid in accordance with law. The section makes it clear that service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the time limit prescribed is mandatory and it is not a mere procedural requirement. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the definition of assessing officer as defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act. The said provision defines 'assessing officer' to mean the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....committed by the assessing officer. The Tribunal considered the correctness of the finding of the CIT(A) and, on facts, found that both the assessing officers, namely, the assessing officer, who had jurisdiction over the assessee till 06.04.2009 and the assessing officer, who had jurisdiction post the said date had not issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. This factual position could not be controverted by the revenue before us. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra), non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and, therefore, it is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter the Tribunal, in our view, rightly held that the proviso to Section 292BB would not stand attracted and the said Section cannot be made applicable to the assessee's case. The Tribunal, thereafter, analysed as to the correctness of the submission of the revenue seeking to sustain their stand by referring to a notice issued by the assessing officer, who at the relevant point had no jurisdiction over the assessee and, on facts, found that there is no valid compliance of Section 143(2) of the Act as the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & ....