TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3) r.w. 263 dated 28.03.2023 which gave effect to the PCIT order u/s 263 dated 26.03.2022. Since the decision on the original assessment made u/s 143(3) in the case for AY 2017-18 would impact the outcome in the other two appeals, we decided to take up the appeal in ITA No. 4875/DEL/2025 first. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in all the 3 appeals. 4. There is a delay of 1,172 days. Having perused the condonation petition and the affidavit, we find that the reason for delay in filing the appeals is that proper professional advice was not obtained. We find that the assessee has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Bullionline LLP, the assessee in the present case, is a limited liability partnership firm incorporated on 07.10.2014 and is engaged in manufacturing/trading /export of gold jewelry and gold bars. The assessee firm is registered at the Registrar of Companies, Delhi. The assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs. 3,02,69,970/- The return of income was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lacs and therefore, the PAN of the assessee be migrated to the concerned charge. Further, after transferring the PAN to ACIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi, the ITO, Ward 40, New Delhi transferred the scrutiny folder of the assessee to ACIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee finally argued that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 08.08.2018 issued by the ITO, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh is therefore without jurisdiction. The ld AR forcefully submitted that the assessment made by the ACIT, Circle 40(1), Delhi is without assumption of proper jurisdiction and therefore, the same may be quashed as void ab initio. The ld AR relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sunworld Infrastructure P Ltd (2015) 64 taxmann.com 471(Delhi). 10. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly contended that that PAN of the assessee company was got allotted on 12.10.2015 which lied under the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 6[1], Chandigarh. This fact was duly in the knowledge of the assessee company. It is also apparent from the copy of ITR for this assessment year 2017-18, placed at page 2 of the assessee's own paper book; thus jurisdiction remained with same Assessing Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing the admitted facts, the issue for adjudication is whether issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was made by the correct Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. 21. We find that for A.Y 2017-18, the time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) was 30.09.2018. ITO Ward 6[1], Chandigarh issued notice u/s 143(2) within the time limit on 08.08.208. However, it is to be seen as to whether the ITO Ward 6[1], Chandigarh had jurisdiction over the assessee's case. We find that immediately after receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act from the ITO Ward 6[1], Chandigarh, the assessee raised objection regarding assumption of jurisdiction on 24.08.2018. The department still had time till 30.09.2018 to issue notice u/s 143(3) of the Act by the jurisdictional office being ACIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi. We find that the record/scrutiny folder was handed over to the correct office having jurisdiction over the assessee only on 06.08.2019. 22. Here also, we note that it was merely the records which were transferred from ITO Ward 6[1], Chandigarh to ACIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi. We do not find any transfer order u/s 127 of the Act which indicates that all throughout, the jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me would have to be directed under Section 127 of the said Act. No such order of transfer has been made and the above letter dated 16.12.2014 is indicative of the fact that the Bangalore Office of the Income Tax Department did not have jurisdiction in this case. 5. That being the position, the purported notice under Section 143(2) issued on 10.09.2013 was one without jurisdiction and cannot be regarded as a valid notice. The first notice, therefore, which was issued by an Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. This was issued clearly beyond the period of limitation which has been prescribed, i.e., beyond 30.09.2013 in this case. As such, the impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act is barred by time. The same is quashed. 25. In view of the above discussion and judicial precedence, we are of the considered view that the impugned notice dated 08.08.2018 has been issued by the Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction over the assessee and therefore, the same is invalid rendering the resultant assessment order u/s 143(3) as bad in law. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 is hereby quashed. Since we have quashed the ....