TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12.2016, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making various additions assessing the income at Rs. 8,15,43,150/-. 4. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued by ITO Ward 5(2), Kolkata. The ld. AR referred to the notice dated 16.01.2017 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act available at page no.1 and 2 and another notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 31.05.2017 Act available at page no. 3,4 and 5. The ld AR submitted that the assessee complied with the said notices. The ld. AR thereafter referred to notice dated 08.09.2017, issued u/s 142(1) of the Act as available at page no.64, which is issued by DCIT, Ward 5(1), Kolkata. The ld. Counsel submitted that thus the assessment framed DCIT, Ward 5(1), Kolkata is invalid and nullity for two reasons. One that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non jurisdictional AO i.e. ITO Ward 5(2) Kolkata which is in violation to CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. Secondly, the case was transferred to DCIT in September, and the DCIT framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld AR,therefore, argued tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me is upto 20 lacs in the Metro Cities and 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have jurisdiction above 20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15 lacs in the Mofussil areas. The said instructions reads as under:- SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Income Declared (Mofus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gitsons Engineering Company, reported in [2015] 370 ITR 87, wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in Section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing officer considers it necessary and expedient to ensure that tax is paid in accordance with law, he should call upon the assessee to produce evidence before him to ensure that the tax is paid in accordance with law. The section makes it clear that service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the time limit prescribed is mandatory and it is not a mere procedural requirement. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the definition of assessing officer as defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act. The said provision defines 'assessing officer' to mean the Assistant Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the Tribunal was perfectly legal and valid. The revenue also sought to rely upon Section 292BB of the Act to justify their stand that notice is deemed to be valid and sought to bring the assessee's case under the circumstances mentioned in Section 292BB. This question was considered by the Tribunal and it was pointed out that Section 292BB provides that where an assessee has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any of the provision of the Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of the Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under the Act that the notice was not served upon him or not served upon him in time or served upon him in an improper manner. This amendment to the Act was introduced with effect from 01.04.2008 and the assessment year under consideration is AY 2007-08. In any event, the Tribunal examined as to whether at all the revenue can rely upon Section 292BB of the Act and noted that the assessee has filed an objection vi....