TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act by the AO i.e. ITO is invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and, the assessment order passed by AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 46(1), New Delhi need to be quashed as the order is passed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) by the authority having jurisdiction over the appellant." By relying on the decision of NTPC, Limited vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC), ld. AR prayed that the issue raised by the assessee is legal issue which can be raised at any stage of the appellate proceedings. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the additional grounds and raised the same at this stage without raising the same before the lower authorities. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record by both the parties. We observe that the issues raised by the assessee in additional grounds go to the root of the matter challenging the jurisdictional issue. In the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited (supra), we are inclined to admit the additional grounds and take up the same for adjudication herein b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns 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 from1-4-2011." 6. He submitted that however, in the present case, notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward 47(1) on 21.09.2018, who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee and thus, notice u/s 143(2) issued is without jurisdiction. He submitted that the fact that ITO did not have jurisdiction is evident from the fact that assessment has been completed by ACIT, Circle - 46(1), Delhi, thus in the absence of valid notice u/s 143(2) by the jurisdictional AO, the assessment order is liable to be quashed and the issue is no more res integra. In this regard, he relied on the case of Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India (452 ITR 43) (Bom) wherein it was held as under: - "Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the reassessment proceedings in the present case are to be treated as being initiated by non-jurisdictional assessing officer and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings and consequent assessment order both needs be quashed. In this regard, further he relied on the cases of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT Circle-4(1) ITA No. 1020/DEL/2019 dated 29.04.2024, M/s. Kelvin International vs. DCIT in ITA No.5363/Del/2017 dated 22.12.2013 and J Mitra and Bros. VS. ACIT in ITA No.3643/Del/2023 dated 10.04.2024, where similar view was considered and decided that no jurisdiction over the assessee and issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the non-jurisdictional officer is bad in law. 8. Ld. AR submitted that in view of the above decisions, it is evident that notice u/s 143(2) issued in this case is without jurisdiction and, therefore the said notice along with the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice is liable to be quashed. 9. Coming to the second objection regarding issue of completion of assessment by non-jurisdictional authority, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the assessee on the basis of CBDT jurisdictional list w.e.f. 15.11.2014 falls in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) was issued by the ITO, Ward 47 (1) on 21.09.2018, who do not have jurisdiction over the assessee in the case considering the fact that the return of income declared by the assessee is over and above Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle - 46(1), Delhi u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, we observe that the jurisdiction lies only with DCIT, however the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the ITO instead of the present Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT. Ld. DR objected to the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the present jurisdictional issue raised now instead of raising the same during assessment itself within one month from the date of receipt of the notice u/s 124 (3) of the Act. After considering the factual matrix in this case, we observe that similar issue under consideration is considered by the coordinate Bench in the case of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) wherein it was held as under :- "4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the additional grounds raised by the assessee go to the root of the matter challenging the jurisdictional per se. All the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2016, the ITO transferred the jurisdiction of the assessee from him to DCIT since the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 is more than 30,00,000/-. Copy of the said transfer memo is enclosed in page 5 of the paper book. After the transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to DCIT, no fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle 4(1), Gurgaon. The assessment was ultimately framed under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 on 14.12.2017 by ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Gurgaon. It is pertinent to note that assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2016 by DCIT, Circle - 27(2), New Delhi. Hence, it was argued that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 issued by the ITO selecting the return of assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 for scrutiny is without jurisdiction and consequently, the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2017 required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice. 4. We have considered the affidavit in reply of one Mr. Suresh G. Kamble, ITO who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act. Said Mr. Kamble, ITO, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai admits that such a defective notice has been issued but according to him, PAN of Petitioner was lying with ITO Ward (12)(3)(1), Mumbai and it was not feasible to migrate the PAN having returned of income exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs to the charge of DCIT, Circle 12(3)(1), Mumbai, as the time available with the ITO 12(3)(1) was too short to migrate the PAN after obtaining administrative approval from the higher authorities by 31st March, 2019. 5. The notice under section 148 of the Act is jurisdictional notice and any inherent defect therein is not curable. In the facts of the case, notice having been issued by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the Petitioner, such notice in our view, has not been issued validly and is issued without authority in law. 6. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the notice dated 30th March, 2019. 7. Consequently the order dated 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection is also quashed and set aside. ....