TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of section 148 notice on 31st March, 2024. This is for the precise reason that the assessee has invited the tribunal's attention to page 45 in the case records that it had declared income amounting to Rs. 4,75,478/-; which going by the CBDT's landmark circular no. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2021, could only have been dealt with by Income Tax Officer than the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner; as the case may be. 4. Faced with this situation, it is further noticed that this tribunal's recent decision in Durga Manikanta Traders v. ITO, December 12, 2022 [2025] 170 taxmann.com 338 (Raipur - Trib.) has already decided the legal issue against the department and in assessee's favour, reading as under: 12. "We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 13. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had, inter alia, revised the existing monetary limits for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.2011 duly applied to his case. Also, as per the areas earmarked in the aforesaid Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 as the assessee is not located in any of those cities/stations which have been held to be metro cities, therefore, his case would be as that of a non-corporate assessee who is located in a mofussil area. Also, as is borne from the record the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 6,57,380/-. 15. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view, that as stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee who is located in a mofussil area i.e. Bhilai and had filed a non-corporate return for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 6,57,380/- was vested with the ITO, Ward 1(1), Bhilai. Although notice u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015 had been issued within the stipulated time period, i.e., within six months from the end of the relevant assessment year which would have expired as on 30.09.2015, however, the same was issued by the DCIT-1(1), Bhilai, i.e., an A.O who pursuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of ACIT, Circle-1 Vs. Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah[2020] 120 taxmann.com 318 (SC). Also, we find that the similar view had been taken by this Tribunal in its recent order passed in the case of Shri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Durg Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai in ITA No.158/RPR/2017 dated 17.10.2022, wherein dealing with the multifacet contentions that were raised by the department, the Tribunal had observed as under: "13. On the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, we are in agreement with the Ld. AR that though the assessment proceedings were rightly initiated and initially embarked upon by Dy. CIT, Circle 1, Bhilai i.e. the officer who was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, but the same thereafter had wrongly been framed by an officer who as observed by us hereinabove did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee in so far the year under consideration was concerned. As the criteria laid down vide the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 for conferring the varied jurisdictions with the ITOs/DCs/ACs on the basis of income declared by the assessee in his return of income is binding upon the department and has to be scrupulously followed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of an A.O is to be resolved. Apropos, subsection (3) of Section 124 of the Act, the same places an embargo upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O where he had initially not raised such objection within a period of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143. In sum and substance, the obligation cast upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where the assessee objects to the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the A.O, and not otherwise. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz Vs. CIT, Tax Appeal Nos. 19 to 30 of 2017, dated 05.04.2021 and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh D Patel (2014) 362 ITR492 (Guj.). In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble High Courts have held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilai vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 30.03.2015 does not suffer from any infirmity. In our considered view the aforesaid contention of the Ld. DR is absolutely misplaced and in fact devoid and bereft of any merit. As the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 exclusively vests the pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13 with the ACs/DCs, therefore, in our considered view despite vesting of concurrent jurisdiction with the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai and the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai the assessment in his case for the year under consideration could only have been framed by the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai. Neither is there any reason discernible from the orders of the lower authorities nor demonstrated before us by the ld. DR which would by any means justify framing of the assessment vide impugned order u/s 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. Apart from that, we find that as per the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 127 of the Act, where a case is to be transferred by authorities therein specified from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of the assessee the assessment order u/s.143(3), dated 30.03.2015 had been passed by a non-jurisdictional officer i.e. the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, which is in clear contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Before parting, we may herein observe that a similar issue as regards the validity of an assessment framed by an A.O who had invalidly assumed jurisdiction in contravention to the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had came up in a host of cases before the various benches of the Tribunal, wherein the respective assessments framed were struck down, for the reason that the same were passed by officers who were not vested with the requisite jurisdiction as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench 'SMC' in the case of Anderson Printing House (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 548 (Kolkata-Trib.). In its order the Tribunal had after drawing support from the order of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2517....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011. 6. Now, in this case, the assessment has been framed by the ACIT. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 127 of the Act as under: Power to transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. 7. A perusal of the above statutory provisions would reveal that jurisdiction to transfer case from one Assessing Officer to other Officer lies with the Officers as mentioned in section 127(1) who are of the rank of Commissioner or above. No document has been produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmit this additional ground as it is a legal ground, raising a jurisdictional issue and does not require any investigation into the facts. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per Board Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dt. 31/01/2011, the jurisdiction of the assessee is with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur, as the assessee is a non- corporate assessee and the income returned is above Rs. 15,00,000/- and whereas, the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 29/09/2016, by the Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Durgapur, who had no jurisdiction of the case. He submitted that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Durgapur, who had the jurisdiction over the assessee, but he had not issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Thus, he submits that the assessment is bad in law. 5.1. On merits, he rebutted the findings of the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on certain case-law, which I would be referring to as and when necessary. 6. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, submitted that the concurrent jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is more than Rs. 15 lacs the case was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1, Haldia to ACIT, Circle-27 and the same was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014 and immediately ACIT issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring Rs. 50,28,040/-. The ITO issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2013. ii) The ITO, Ward-1, Haldia taking note that the income returned was above Rs. 15 lacs transferred the case to ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014. iii) On 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 50,28,040/-. As per the CBDT Instruction the monetary limits in respect to an assessee who is an individual which falls under the category of 'non corporate returns' the ITO's increased monetary limit was upto Rs. 15 lacs; and if the returned income is above Rs. 15 lacs it was the AC/DC. So, since the returned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down in terms of our aforesaid observations. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations quash the order passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai for want of jurisdiction on his part." 17. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as in the case of the present assessee before us the impugned assessment had been framed by the ITO-1(1), Bhilai vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 29.12.2016 on the basis of a notice u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015 that was issued by the DCIT-1(1), Bhilai, i.e., an A.O who at the relevant point of time was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, therefore, the assessment so framed cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Apropos the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 05.05.2016 by the ITO-Ward 1(1), Bhilai, we are of the considered view that as the said notice was issued after the lapse of the stipulated time period, i.e., beyond the specified time frame which expired as on 30.09.2015, therefore, the assessment order so frame....