2025 (12) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the facts of the case, the assessment order is void ab initio in as much as, no mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act issued by ITO Ward-13(3), Kolkata before he framed to assessment stage, hence the assessment proceedings and assessment order was bad in law and hence the same be quashed. 2. For that on the facts of the case, ITO Ward-44(4), Kolkata was not issued notice as per Jurisdictional Transfer Provision of the I.T Rules to ITO Ward-13(3), Kolkata and not intimated to the assessee transfer order u/s. 120 or 127, therefore, he did not enjoy the jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and order passed by the AO, as well as the CIT(A) is null in the eyes of law and it has to be quashed. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued by ITO Ward 44(4), Kolkata. The case was then transferred to ITO Ward 1(3) and then to TRO-3, Kolkata. Finally, the assessment was framed by ITO ward 3(3), Kolkata. The appeal filed by the assessee is also dismissed by the CIT(A). 04. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the above additional ground for the first time before the Tribunal which has not been raised before either of the authorities below but since, the issue raised goes to the root of the matter and is a legal issue respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688(SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), we are inclined to admit the same for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dispensed with, other statutory formalities which includes issuing an order are required to be complied with. Similarly transfer of files for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and the earlier years as intimated in the letter/notice dated July 30, 2009 issued by respondent No. 1 is also bad in law. The argument of the respondents that in case of intra city transfer no order is required to be passed, cannot be accepted in view of the settled position of law in Kashiram Aggarwalla [1965] 56 ITR 14 (SC) and in S.L. Singhania [1992] 193 ITR 275 (Delhi) wherein the validity of the orders were under challenge, meaning thereby an order recording transfer has to be on the records. The judgment in Subhas Chandra Bhaniramka [2010] 320 ITR 349 (Ca....