TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....henticated only as prescribed by the system, without manual identifiers. Mentioning the officer's location and handwritten or typed designation constitutes an invalid mode of authentication that renders the order procedurally defective. Ground 3-Non-compliance with CBDT's Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction Schemes That by disclosing his identity and jurisdiction (Chandigarh), the Addl./JCIT(A) has acted contrary to CBDT Notification No.76/2020 (Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020) and Notification No.33/2023, which centralize jurisdiction and allocate cases via automated systems, ensuring officer anonymity. Such disclosure violates the principle of faceless adjudication and anonymity intended by section 144B(1), read with section 246(5). Ground 4 - Jurisdictional Error and Ultra Vires Action That the officer, in issuing a non-faceless order with identity disclosure, acted without jurisdiction, since appeals handled under the e-Appeals Scheme are required to be processed only through the centralized system of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). An order passed in breach of statutory procedure is invalid ab initio. Ground 5 - Vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee as mandated u/s. 127(1) & (2) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel had referred to the decision of this Bench in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.), ITA No.113/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2016-17, dated 19.03.2025. It was further contended by the Ld. Counsel that if this ground is answered in affirmative, rest all other grounds except Ground of appeal No.6 shall stand academic only. 4. In this case, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO-2(1), Raipur on 16.10.2014 and served on 17.10.2014. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2012-13 was issued by the ITO-3(1), Raipur on 15.12.2014 and served on 16.12.2014 who finally completed the assessment. It is, therefore, contention of the assessee that there is no mandatory order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act regarding transferring of jurisdiction from ITO-2(1), Raipur to ITO-3(1), Raipur in the case of the assessee. 5. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR was provided an opportunity to furnish a report and she had submitted the said report dated 09.12.2025 which reads as follows: ‌From the aforesaid, it is discernible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that when certain legal issues have been arisen and the assessee has failed to raise such legal issues before the sub-ordinate authorities, then he should not be prevented from raising the same before any other appellate authority. Therefore, taking guidance from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention regarding the issue of jurisdiction is held to be valid as had been raised by the assessee first time before the Tribunal. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) as has been relied on by the Ld. Sr. DR is clearly focused on the parameter of compliance. However, in the present case as demonstrated in the record, it is not that of compliance and rather, it is ambiguity in issuance of notice and denying an opportunity to the assessee as to whether he should respond to the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur or ITO, Ward- 3(1), Raipur. There are plethora of judicial pronouncements wherein it had been held that the tax payer should be provided opportunity to prepare for his defence in timely and appropriate manner and if there is any ambiguity/confusion arising in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of notice and any ambiguity there denied the right of the assessee for fair and judicious proceedings. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case." 7. Rebutting the facts of the present case, it is noted as per the documents on record that the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 was issued by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur and thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur who had framed the assessment without any order of transfer as required u/s. 127 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Similarly, if it is to be accepted that the actual jurisdiction is with the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur then first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 which had been issued for initiating the scrutiny proceedings by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur is definitely without a valid jurisdiction over the assessee. When the issuance of notice and framing of assessment order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent order pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the ITO-3(1) Raipur vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.10.2018 in absence of an order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act having been passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT and without any issuance of notice by him u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, is held to be without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law and thus, the same is quashed. 10. Needless to say, once the assessment has been quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction then all the other proceedings subsequent thereto becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee then the grounds on merits becomes academic. 11. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed."‌ 7. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning, I hold that the assessment framed by the ITO-3(1) Raipur vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2015 in absence of an order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act is held to be without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law and thus, the same is quashed. 8. Since the asses....