By Jagdish T. Punjabi | Prachi Parekh
Chartered Accountants | Devendra Jain
Advocate
28. [2021] 123 taxmann.com 395 (Luck.)(Trib.) ITO vs. Arti Securities & Services Ltd. A.Y.: 2014-15 Date of order: 6th November, 2020
Sections 143(2) and 143(3) – Assessment order passed by a jurisdictional officer in a case where the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued by him but by a non-jurisdictional officer is bad in law and void ab initio
FACTS
In an appeal filed by the Revenue, the assessee filed an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and raised two issues – one related to limited scrutiny and another related to jurisdiction. The Tribunal admitted the application of the assessee and heard and decided the jurisdictional ground.
The assessee had e-filed return of income on 26th September, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 11,11,750 and the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) vide notice issued by DCIT, Circle-4, Kanpur and DCIT-6, Kanpur on the same date, i.e., 3rd September, 2015. As per assessment order dated 29th December, 2016 read with transfer memo dated 16th May, 2016, the case was transferred from DCIT-6, Kanpur to Income-tax Officer-6(1), Kanpur on the ground of monetary limit vide order dated 28th April, 2016 passed by the Pr. CIT-2, Kanpur. The jurisdictional Income-tax Officer, Kanpur did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) and completed the assessment without issuing any notice u/s 143(2).
The jurisdictional A.O. started the proceedings from 18th May, 2016 by mentioning that case records were received from DCIT-6, Kanpur because of change of monetary limit.
In the course of appellate proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that on this copy of the order sheet there is no mention of issue of notice u/s 143(2), nor is there any mention of any order passed by the Commissioner u/s 127. Besides, when the first notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 3rd September, 2015, Revenue was aware of the fact that as per monetary limit for ITR of Rs. 11,11,750, the competent A.O. to issue notice u/s 143(2) was the Income-tax Officer-6(1), Kanpur.
HELD
The Tribunal noted that
i) The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.11,11,750;
ii) The jurisdictional A.O. was the Income-tax Officer, Ward-6, Kanpur (as per CBDT instruction No. 1/2011);
iii) Two notices u/s 143(2) were issued by DCIT-4, Kanpur and DCIT-6, Kanpur on the same date, i.e., 3rd September, 2015;
iv) The statutory notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued by the jurisdictional A.O.;
v) No order u/s 127 has been passed by the CIT transferring the case from DCIT-6 to Income-tax Officer-6, Kanpur.
Considering the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Krishnendu Chowdhury vs. ITO [2017] 78 taxmann.com 89 (Kol.); Sukumar Chandra Sahoo vs. Asst. CIT [IT Appeal No. 2073 (Kol.) of 2016, dated 27th September, 2017] and Bajrang Bali Industries vs. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 724 (LKW) of 2017, dated 30th November, 2018], the Tribunal allowed the jurisdictional ground taken by the assessee and held that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued by an officer having jurisdiction on the assessee and who had passed the assessment order, therefore in view of non-issue of statutory notice u/s 143(2), the assessment order is bad in law and void ab initio and hence all further proceedings including the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and, therefore, the appeal filed by Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) does not stand and is dismissed.
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by allowing one of the grounds of the assessee raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.
