Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: MANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year : 2015-16 & S.P.No.10/CTK/2024 State State Pollution Pollution Control Control Vs. ITO, Ward ITO, Ward -5(2), Board, Board, Plot Plot No.A No.A-118, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Paribesh Bhawan, Unit Paribesh Bhawan, Unit-VIII, Nilakantha Nilakantha Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AAALS 2490 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA/S.K.Hota,AR /S.K.Hota,AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17/9 9/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17/9 /9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated A), NFAC, Delhi dated 24.5.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 2/10876/2017 2/10876/2017-18 for the assessment year 2015-16.
Shri S.K.Ag S.K.Agrawalla, and Shri S.k.Hota, ld AR d ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 9
It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2015-16, the Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak had issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act whereas the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee was Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(2), Bhubaneswar. Ld AR drew our attention to page 1 & 2 of the paper book, which was a copy of notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act which reads as follows:
P a g e 2 | 9
P a g e 3 | 9
Ld AR further drew our attention to pages 3 & 4 of paper book, which is a letter of the Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak to Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar, which reads as follows:
P a g e 4 | 9
P a g e 5 | 9
It was the further submission that the assessee had filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year before the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar. Ld AR drew our attention to the acknowledgement of the return of income placed at page 183 of PB, which is as follows:
P a g e 6 | 9
It was the further submission that under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in & S.A No.12/CTK/2018 order dated 13.10.2019 quashed the assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15. It was the submission that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 is similar to the notice issued u/s.143(2) for the assessment year 2015-16 on the same date. It was the submission that as the notice u/s.143(2) has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction over the assessee, consequently, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.
In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2014-15 in assessee’s own case (supra) shows that the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the fact that the notice had been issued by the wrong Assessing Officer has in paras 11 to 13 held as follows:
“11. From the above it is clear that the ITO, Bhadrak when issued notice to the assessee u/s.143(2) of the Act on 19.09.2016, the assessee he should have taken in his cognizance that if the addres mentioned at Bhubaneswar which is not the jurisdictional AO of the assessee rather issuing notice u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act to the assessee.
12. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that, the Income Tax data base is showing the jurisdictional AO of the assessee at Bhadrak, however, from the PAN
P a g e 7 | 9 data base shown by the department, the jurisdictional AO of the assessee is at Bhubaneswar in the PAN data base which is primary interaction with the Income Tax Department. Therefore, why the asessee should suffer the mistake occurred on the part of the Income Tax Department. Considering the above and as per the data of the Income Tax Department notice must be issued by the jurisdictional AO but not by the ITO Bhadrak. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the case law relied on by the ld. DR is not applicable in the case in hand. Therefore, the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act is beyond jurisdiction of the AO, which is not sustainable in law and, consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO is hereby quashed. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and quashed the assessment order dated 15.12.2016. Thus, the legal ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
13. As we have decided the legal ground raised by the assessee holding that the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued by the AO, who does not hold the jurisdiction over the assessee is not sustainable and consequently quashed the assessment order passed by the AO, therefore, other grounds raised by the assesee on merits are not required to be adjudicated upon by us. “
9. As the issues are identical for the impugned assessment year also, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year being 2014-15, the impugned order of the ld CIT(A) and assessment order stands quashed.
The assessee has filed stay petition in SP.No.10/CTK/2024 in ITA No.300/CTK./2024. As the appeal of the assessee has been disposed of in favour of the assessee, the assessee has sought to withdraw the stay petition. Consequently, the stay petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
P a g e 8 | 9
No other issues had been argued by both the sides.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the stay petition stands dismissed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/9/2024.