TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me lender and the real of the liquor business run in his name, were some other persons named by him, the authorities below grossly erred in not seriously probing the matter to arrive at a logical conclusion by simply resting the entire onus on assessee, ignoring the assessee's poor financial and social status 3. That the ld. CIT(A), even while deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,000,00/-, as not pertaining to this year, was not justified in still holding that the source of Rs. 1,50,000,00/- could not be explained by the assessee and further erred in law in directing the AD u/s. 150(1) to bring this amount to tax in AY 2012-13. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) was again not justified in law or on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,70,71,484/- as made by the ld. AO by way of disallowance under section 40A(3) and in further enhancing the same by Rs. 16,47,597/-. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment ought to have been made by estimating the income after invoking section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions u/s. 68 and 40A(3), and rejection of this ground by ld. CIT(A) is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Officer and not with the DCIT. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that there was no such monetary limit prescribed. The aforesaid notification/letter was issued for internal/administrative purpose of the Department and the same did not give rise to the any legal right to the assessee to object regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction to the Assessing officer. That even as per the said notification/letter the concerned JCIT/DCIT did not pass any order to transfer the case to the concerned ITO and, therefore, in the absence of the any letter in writing, the jurisdiction was vested with the concerned DCIT/JCIT. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act which defines the Assessing officer as under:- 2(7A) "Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BDT having regard to the income as per return has fixed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers. 11. At this stage reference can be made to the copy of the order dated 31.10.2014 bearing F. No. Pr. CCIT/Chd/Tech./2014-15/4595-96, issued by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, N.W. Region, Chandigarh passed in pursuance Notification No. 50 dated 22.10.2014 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary (SO No. 2752(E), addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla/Panchkula/Ludhiana and Amritsar wherein, among others, the following specific directions were given in para 4. "4. In view of the Gazette Notification and the approval received from the Zonal Member, I have been directed to state that jurisdiction over the cases having total income of more than Rs. 35 lacs before exemption under Chapter III and deductions under Chapter -XIA be assigned to the DCsIT/ACsIT and other cases be assigned to ITOs." 12. In view of this, the pecuniary jurisdiction in this case lied with the Income Tax Officer and not with the DCIT, therefore, the assessee framed by the DCIT being without jurisdiction was bad in law. 13. The issue relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and the income returned is above Rs. 15,00,000/- and whereas, the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 29/09/2016, by the Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Durgapur, who had no jurisdiction of the case. He submitted that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Durgapur, who had the jurisdiction over the assessee, but he had not issued the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Thus, he submits that the assessment is bad in law. 5.1. On merits, he rebutted the findings of the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on certain case-law, which I would be referring to as and when necessary. 6. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, submitted that the concurrent jurisdiction vests with the ITO as well as the ACIT and hence the assessment cannot be annulled simply because the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, was issued by the ITO and the assessment was completed by the ACIT. He further submitted that the assessee did not object to the issue of notice before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and even otherwise, Section 292BB of the Act, comes into play and the assessment can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....09.2013. ii) The ITO, Ward-1, Haldia taking note that the income returned was above Rs. 15 lacs transferred the case to ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014. iii) On 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 the assessee. It is settled law that serving of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is a sine qua non for an assessment to be made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In this case, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.09.2013 by ITO, Ward-1, Haldia when he did not have the pecuniary ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 -Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Tribunal - Held, yes Whether jurisdiction of Assessing Authority is not dependent on date of accrual of cause of action but on date when it is initiated - Held, yes - Whether once a particular jurisdiction is created, same must be prospective and cannot be retrospective and it has to be interpreted having regard to manner in which it has been sought to be created -Held, yes - Assessee" 9.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC), held as follows:- "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....