AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,920/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under compulsory parameters by the input from DIT(Inv.) relating to suspicion transactions in shares. The assessee had shown long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 66,82,916/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act arose from sale of shares of Kailash Auto Finance. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee submitted supporting documents including brokers note for purchase of shares, sale contract notes of sale of shares and bank statement etc. at the time of hearing of hearing of the matter before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer based on the report of the DIT(Inv.) and considering the evidences held that LTCG was not genuine and added the entire sale proceeds of Rs. 69,42,916/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act subjected to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act along with an amount of Rs. 4,86,004/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure in the hands of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's order without addressing the key conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e concerned Assessing Officer to frame the impugned assessment order, therefore, it is appropriate to admit the aforesaid legal ground and proceed to adjudicate the legal ground first. 8. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the materials available on record, note that the return of income of the assessee was of Rs. 16,50,920/- which falls under the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-28(2), Kolkata but notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata and also the assessment order was duly framed by ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata, which is clearly a violation of the jurisdictional mandate under CBDT Circular No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. We note that this procedural irregularity rendered the assessment proceedings invalid and bad in law. We find support from the various judicial precedents including the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries vs. ITO (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal from para 9 onwards held as under: "9. Through the additional grounds, assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order in question framed on 26/03/2016 on the ground that the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has decided the issue in favour of the assessee after following the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The operative part of the decision is extracted as under: "5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has invited our attention to the opening paras of the assessment framed to submit that the returned income of the assessee was 17,51,940/-, which was less than Rs. 30,00,000/- and that the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act in case of an assessee, wherein, the returned income is Rs. 30,00,000/- or less, was lying with the ITO. He has further submitted that however the assessment in this case has been framed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-29, Kolkata (ACIT) who did not have jurisdiction to frame the assessment in question. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the recent decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd. in ITAT/39/2023 in IA No.GA/1/2023 dated 15.03.2023. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further relied on the decision of the Coordinate 'C' Bench of the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction to frame assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. He, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Hotel Blue Moon (supra). The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that in this case the concerned DCIT did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before proceeding to frame assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. He has submitted that since the concerned ITO, Ward-1(1) did not have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as such the said notice issued by him did not have any legal sanctity. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessment framed by the DCIT, in this case, was bad in law for want of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid legal position based on aforesaid factual aspect put by the ld. counsel for the assessee. However, she has relied upon the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of ld. representatives of both the parties and gone through the records. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to section 120 of the Act which, for the sake of ready refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Income Declared (Mofussil Income Declared areas) (Metro cities) ITOs ACs/DCs ITOs DCs/Acs Corporate returns Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs Upto Rs. 30 lacs Above Rs. 30 lacs Non-corporate returns Upto Rs. 15 lacs Above Rs. 15 lacs Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011." 7. A perusal of the above provisions of law along with the CBDT Instructions would show, in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) of the Act, to the assessee. This issue is no more res-integra. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Soma Roy vs. ACIT in ITA No. 462/Kol/2019; Assessment Year 2015-16, order dt. 8th January, 2020, under identical circumstances, held as under:- "5. After hearing rival contentions, I admit this additional ground as it is a legal ground, raising a jurisdictional issue and does not require any investigation into the facts. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per Board Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dt. 31/01/2011, the jurisdiction of the assessee is with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur, as the assessee is a non-corporate 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CBDT circular (supra). From a perusal of the assessment order, it reveals that the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the then ITO, Ward-1, Haldia on 06.09.2013 and the same was served on the assessee on 19.09.2013 as noted by the AO. The AO noted that since the returned income is more than Rs. 15 lacs the case was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1, Haldia to ACIT, Circle-27 and the same was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014 and immediately ACIT issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring Rs. 50,28,040/-. The ITO issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2013. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....metax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward- I, Haldia and none other - But, notice was issued by Asstt. Commissioner, Circle Haldia much after CBDT's instruction and knowing fully well that he had no jurisdiction over assessee - Whether, therefore, notice issued by Asstt. Commissioner was invalid and consequently assessment framed by Income-tax Officers becomes void since issue of notice under section 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011." 9.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - I, reported in [2005] 278 ITR 218 (Cal.) has held as follows:- "Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 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 - Wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ully following the propositions of law laid down in all these case-law and applying the same to the facts of the case, we hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as required by the statute. Notice issue by the officer having no jurisdiction of the assessee is null and void. When a notice is issued by an officer having no jurisdiction, Section 292BB of the Act, does not comes into play. Coming to the argument of the ld. D/R that objection u/s 124(3) of the Act has to be taken by the assessee on rectifying notice u/s 143(2) of the Act from a non-jurisdictional assessing officer, I am of the view that I need not adjudicate this issue, as I have held that non-issual of statutory notice/s 143(2) of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer makes the assessment bad in law. Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal of the assessee." 6. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these orders stated above, we hold that the orders are bad in law for the reason that the assessing authority passed the order u/s 143(3) of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crutiny assessment, thereafter mere change of jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the same Range and/or Pr.CIT cannot affect the assessment proceedings?" 5. On the above substantial questions of law, the Hon'ble Court held that Tribunal rightly allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the scrutiny proceedings as effect of non-issuance of notice is incurable since it goes to the root of the matter. The Hon'ble Court noted that "we find no ground to differ with the findings recorded by the Ld. Tribunal. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law are answered against the revenue." 5.1. While giving this judgment, the Hon'ble Court noted the factual findings of the Tribunal which is reproduced as under: "The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether there is valid notice issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act for commencing the Scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal has noted the facts and rendered a finding that on the date when the case was selected for scrutiny, the authority who issued the notice namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.9 (4), Kolkata did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, statutory requirement of serving a valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is a must and in absence of which the subsequent proceedings become invalid. In the present case before us, it is a fact that assessee has reported total income of Rs. 43,53,620/- which exceeds the threshold prescribed in the CBDT Instruction no. 1/2011 read with revised monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction, it stated that in case of metro cities, in case of corporate declared income above Rs. 30 lakh, the jurisdiction of such corporate assessee will lie with the DCs/ ACs. It is not in dispute that as on the date of selecting the case for scrutiny, the very basis for having jurisdiction over the assessee is the returned income which was more than Rs. 30 lakhs and the same was lying with the DCs/ACs but the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued by ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata. It is true that subsequently the assessment has been framed by ACIT, Circle-49, Kolkata but the point in dispute is that on the date of issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, whether the ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata was having a valid jurisdiction to issue such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings in response to the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessee did not challenge the jurisdiction within 30 days of issuance of notice and, therefore, in light of the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act since the assessee did not object within 30 days of the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessee could not question the jurisdiction of the AO. But since the issue before us relates to the jurisdiction of the AO framing the assessment order, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court will not be applicable on the facts of the instant case. Thus, to conclude, we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and hold that the assessment order framed in the case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 dt. 26/03/2016 is without jurisdiction and is a nullity and is hereby quashed as the AO framing the said assessment did not have jurisdiction over the assessee as mandated in the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra). 11. Since we have allowed the additional ground and quashed the assessment order, dealing with the grounds on quantum addition will be merely academic in nature. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above." ....