TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the case of jute Corporation of India reported in 187 ITR PAGE 688 National Thermal Power Corporation reported in 229 ITR 383, the additional grounds may be admitted." Yours faithfully, Sd/ For Shree Deosharwali Oil Industries Additional grounds 1. For that the proceedings initiated vide notice u/s.148(A)(b), 148A(d) and 148 were without jurisdiction and therefore, the entire reassessment is bad in law. 2. For that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of reopening when notice u/s.148A(b) is bad in law since it provided less than 7 days to comply and therefore, the entire assessment is bad in law. 3. For that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of reopening when the sanction obtained u/s.151 was bad in law and were not provided to the assessee despite specific requests. 4. For that the notice issued u/s.148 is bad in law since it was issued prior to the passing of order u/s.148A(d). 5. For that the AO erred in making addition on other item which was not the issue for which the case has been reopened and when no addition was made on the item for which the case was reopened." 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of notice issued u/s. 143(2) is no longer res integra. It is a settled position of law that for carrying out an assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of 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, Circ1e-49, Kolkata but the point in dispute is that on the date of iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, the legal ground stands to be admitted and the same relates to invalid notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act. It is a settled position of law that for carrying out the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the statutory requirement of serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is must and in absence thereof the subsequent proceedings become invalid. In the case of assessee, the facts are that the assessee has declared income of Rs.48,47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward9(4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that in case of metro cities in case of corporates declare 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 no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of jurisdiction. Section 292 B is for blocking the invalidation for reasons of any mistake, defect or omission to protect a notice which has been issued without jurisdiction. In the present case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer who has issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act, did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the instruction issued by CBDT (supra). This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shree Shoppers (supra) as also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Shivam Finance (supra), it is held that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and consequential assessments are also bad in law. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2024. ============= Document 1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO, WARD BARGARH/ To SHREE DEOSHARWALI OIL INDUSTRIES C/O BINAY KUMAR JINDAL PUSHP KUNJ, NH 6 BARGARH 768028 , Orissa India DIN & Notice No: PAN: A.Y: Dated: ACBFS4179D 26/03/2022 ....