TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....42(1) dated 08.08.2017 along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. Sh. Rajat Barnwal, FCA & AR of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings and filed submissions. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 26.12.2017 made addition of Rs. 3,92,00,000/- as LTCG. Against order dated 26.12.2017 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2019. 3. Being aggrieved appellant assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds "1. (i) That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 28 (hereinafter called CIT (A)) dismissing the appeal is illegal, unjust, opposed to facts and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. (ii) That each ground of appeal is an independent ground, without prejudice to each other. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Same as order of the CIT (A) is bad in the eyes of law, since, Ld. AO in-spite of being informed that the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority is far in excess of fair market value, did not refer the valuation, in terms of section 50C(2) of the IT Act. The Assessment so framed is illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. As per jurisdictional details page No.25 & 26 of PB. Return of income was filed by the assessee by mentioning address at New Delhi and designation of AO is Ward -7(1), Kolkata. Assessment Order dated 26.12.2017 was passed by Ld. AO/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. No notice regarding transfer of case from Kolkata to Delhi was given to the assessee. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Contentions of DR for Ground No. 2: 1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 143(2): 1.1. The notice under Section 143(2) dated 19.09.2016 was issued by the erstwhile AO, ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata, within the prescribed time limit as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2. The issuance of this notice fulfilled the statutory requirement for initiating scrutiny proceedings and provided the foundation for a valid assessment under Section 143(3). 2. No Requirement for Fresh Notice Upon Transfer: [Section 129] 2.1.1. There is no provision in the Income Tax Act mandating the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 143(2) when the jurisdiction of the case is transferred to another AO. 2.1.2. The initial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... since the returned income had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-, in view of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the said Instruction No.1/2011 [F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1)] dated 31.01.2011 is hereby reproduced:- "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-1)), DATED 31-1-2011 Income Declared (Mofussil areas) Income Declared (Metro cities) ITOS ACS/DCS ITOS DCS/ACS Corporate returns Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs Upto Rs. 30 lacs About Rs. 30 lacs Non- corporate returns Upto Rs. 15 lacs About Rs. 15 lacs Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs 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 IT'Os 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act could be taken shelter by the Revenue only when legal valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the Revenue. In the instant case, notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act on 12.04.2016 by ITO is not legal as he did not possess jurisdiction over the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 in as much as the returned income for Α.Υ. 2015-16 had exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI reported in 452 ITR 43 (Bom). In this case, very same issue was addressed in the light of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011[F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] Dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder: "1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2012-13 and order passed on 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection to reopening on various grounds. 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income Tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction....