TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 400/Kol/2018 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- A. Whether the learned ITAT has committed substantial error in law in holding that the assessment order under Section 147/143 (3)/263/144 dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer was not - existence in the eye of law, thus deleting the addition of Rs.95.39 crores without adjudicating on the facts of the case. B. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by not considering that though the order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 15.03.2013, the PAN was and records have also not been transferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. Therefore, it is submitted that the case of the assessee ought not to have been allowed on this ground. 6. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent assessee submitted that the only summons or notice received by the assessee from the Assessing Officer is dated 21st February, 2014. Further, it is submitted that it is incorrect to contend that the assessee did not raise the jurisdictional point before the appellate authority and the fact remains that the said point was specifically canvassed by the assessee before the CIT(A). In this regard, the learned advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds raised before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended as follows: "It may be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gamated). The AO even did not consider the paper books filed by the assessee evidencing the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction. Hence the assessment having been completed in post haste and without jurisdiction and therefore the same is bad in law and is liable to be quashed." 7. Thus, it is seen that the jurisdictional point was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A). However, it appears that the CIT(A) did not appreciate the same in a proper perspective nor considered the effect of the said submission. 8. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has confined their argument only to the jurisdiction point which is evident from paragraph 2 of the impugned order. The learned Tribunal on go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is validly removed by a competent authority under the provisions of a statute, the original court or any Tribunal or authority in such event will be incompetent, as having ceased to have jurisdiction, to proceed further with the pending proceeding or proceeding which may be instituted after such removal of jurisdiction. 9. After noting the above decisions, the Tribunal has examined the facts and has found that on the date when the Assessing Officer completed the assessment, he had no jurisdiction over the matter. 10. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income Tax Appeal No. 889 of 2018 dated 2nd December, 2022. In the ....