TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred confirming addition of Rs.10,24,050/- being 75% of total deposit of Rs.13,65,400/- in bank account. 3. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 4. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, omit or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal." Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction for the assessment order was passed by the Ld. ACIT-2(1), Bhilai while jurisdiction over the case was lying with Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai." 2. As the assessee by raising the additional ground of appeal has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing of the assessment vide his order passed u/ss.144/147 of the Act dated 07.12.2018, which involves purely a question of law based on the material available on record and would not require looking into facts any further beyond those available on record, therefore, after hearing the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, I have no hesita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2014 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bhilai was vested with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, therefore, the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai had vide his letter dated 10.04.2018 transferred the case of the assessee a/w. relevant case records to the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his aforesaid claim had drawn my attention to a letter dated 10.04.2018 that was enclosed a/w. a letter filed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, DR ITAT dated 05.11.2022. Further, the Ld. AR took me through a letter dated 13.10.2022 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai to the JCIT, DR ITAT wherein the jurisdiction history of the assessee was mentioned. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as admitted by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai while transferring the assessee's case a/w. case records to ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai vide his letter dated 10.04.2018, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as per the Notification No.01/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bhilai was vested with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, therefore, ITO, Ward-1(3) Bhilai clearly lacked jurisdiction for initiating proceedings by rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, thereafter, framed the assessment in the case of the assessee vide his order passed u/ss.144/147 dated 07.12.2018. For the sake of clarity, the jurisdiction history in the case of the assessee as is discernible from the letter dated 13.10.2022 of the ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai is culled out, as under: JURISDICTION HISTORY FROM/AO TO/AO DATE ORDERS/NOTIFICATIONS ITO-1(3), Bhilai ITO-2(2), Bhilai 10/04/2018 Copy of letter of ITO-1(3), Bhilai dated 10/04/2018 along with copy of Notification 1/2014-15 dated 15/11/2014. ITO-2(2), Bhilai ACIT-2(1), Bhilai 25/09/2018 Copy of letter of ITO-2(2), Bhilai dated 25/09/2018 along with order u/s.127(1) of Pr. CIT-2, Raipur dated 12.09.2018. 12. Controversy involved in the present appeal boils down to the issue as to whether or not the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai had validly initiated proceedings in the case of the assessee and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 09.03.2018? Also, as an analogy that can be drawn therefrom is as to whether the assessment framed by the ACIT-2(1), Bhilai vide his order passed u/ss.144/147 dated 07.12.2018 can be sustained on the basis of notice issued by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3), Bhilai did not have any jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as on 09.03.2018, i.e. the date of issuance of the notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the inescapable view that can be drawn therefrom is that he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and initiated proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee under consideration. 15. As regards the contention of the department that now when the assessee as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 had not called in question the jurisdiction of the A.O within the stipulated time period of one month from the date of receipt of notice u/s.148, dated 09.03.2018 from the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, therefore, he could not have assailed the same for the very first time in the course of the present proceedings, in my considered view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.148, dated 09.03.2018 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai was not a notice issued by an authority falling within the meaning of "Assessing Officer" i.e. either of the authorities contemplated in Section 2(7A) of the Act, viz. such authority who was vested with the relevant jurisdiction by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to the jurisdiction of the A.O prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the A.O's territorial jurisdiction and the same would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action of the A.O is without authority of law and therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court is culled out, as under: "7. We are also in agreement with the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's objection to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on the ground that if no search was initiated, notice under Section 153A of the Act could not have been issued, cannot be curtailed on the ground that such objection was raised beyond the period referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act. Section 124 of the Act pertains to jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. Sub- section (1) of Section 124 lays down territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 provides that where the question arises under said section, as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, such question shall be determined by the au....