TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the "Act"), dated 02.03.2015 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. Grounds taken by the Department are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the order of A.O by ignoring the fact that in this case the assessee has challenged order u/s. 263 passed by CIT, Kolkata-II before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata and the same has been decided in he favour of revenue. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and law and quashed the assessment order under consideration on the basis of dispute raised by the assessee over the jurisdiction which is contrary to section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction before A.O during the course of assessment proceeding. 3. (a) The order of the CIT(Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 153C of IT Act The notice was issued by the CIT after transfer of jurisdiction of the case to Delhi. 18.02.2014 Notice u/s 153C of IT Act was issued by ACIT,CC-8, New Delhi. The jurisdiction u/s. 153C was assumed by ACIT. CC-8, New Delhi in accordance with order of CIT-II, Kolkata u/s. 127 of IT Act. 24.02.2014 Return filed u/s 153C in the office of above Central Circle - 25.03.2014 Order u/s.163 of IT Act was passed. The above order was passed without jurisdiction as the jurisdiction stood transferred to Delhi charge prior to passing of order u/s 263. Further, the proceedings got abated by virtue of second proviso to set 153A of IT Act. 30.03.2014 Order u/s 153C of IT Act was passed by ACIT, CC-8, Delhi - 02.03.2015 O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income-Tax(Appeals) after considering the chronology of events and the corroborative evidences as well as provisions of law, held in favour of the assessee and quashed the impugned assessment order. The findings given by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) in this respect are reproduced as under: "4.3 It is observed that the order u/s 127(2) was passed vide F. No. CIT/Kol- 11/Centralisation/2013-14/7948-56 dated 30.01.2014 by CIT-II, Kolkata transferring the jurisdiction to DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi. Accordingly, the notice u/s 153C r.ws 153A was issued by DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi on 18.02.2014. The order u/s 263 was passed by erstwhile CIT Kolkata on 25.3.2014. The case u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 became pending be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 dated 30.01.2014 by CIT-11, Kolkata to DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi had been reverted back by any other order to ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata. There cannot be two proceedings pending with different AO's on same case, without any concurrent order of jurisdiction. In the absence of any such order, the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata had assumed jurisdiction without any authority of law to proceed in this case and frame the assessment order after the order u/s 127 had been passed. Further as on the date of pendency of 153C proceedings for AY 2009-10, the reopened proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 for AY 2009-10 became pending before the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata. These proceedings should have been transferred to DC, CC-8, New Delhi, who had jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that the limitation prescribed in section 124(3) comes to the rescue of revenue only after crossing the hurdle placed in section 124(1) which in turn refers to section 120(1) and (2) of the Act. According to him, the Assessing Officer has to be first vested with appropriate jurisdiction in terms of section 120(1) and (2) which is not so in the present case. Since an order under Section 127 had already been passed on 30.01.2014 transferring the jurisdiction from Kolkata to New Delhi, learned Assessing Officer in the present case was divested of the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. According to him, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent ....