REETA SINGHAL,GHAZIABAD vs. PRCIT, MEERUT

directed against the order of learned Pr.CIT(A), Meerut dated 21.03.2018.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

4. That without prejudice, the impugned asstt., since without jurisdiction, consequently the impugned order u/s.263 is also without jurisdiction and illegal.

5. That without prejudice, in view of reply furnished in response to notice u/s 263, the directions of setting aside the asstt. even on LTCG issue is illegal.”

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the original assessment order has been quashed by the Tribunal in relating to Assessment Year 2014-15 vide order dated 05.03.2021.

6. “We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since it is a legal issue and all facts are arising from record, therefore, we propose to decide the issue of jurisdiction and as such there is no need to remand back the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as is argued by the Ld. D.R. It is not in dispute that assessee filed return of income with Range-2, Meerut [PB-1] for assessment year in appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed on record copy of the acknowledgment of filing of the return of income for preceding A.Ys. 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 with Range-2, Meerut in the name of the assessee. It would, therefore, show that assessee filed return of income at Meerut. The Revenue Department has not produced any material before us to show as to how the jurisdiction from Meerut to Malegaon (Nasik) have been transferred in the case of the assessee. It is contended that the time limit for issuing notice under section 143(2) was up to 30.09.2015. In this case the ITO at Malegaon has issued notice under section 143(2) on Dated 18.09.2015, but, he was having no jurisdiction with the case of the assessee. The assessee objected to the jurisdiction at Malegaon by fling an objection under section 124(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 30.09.2016 denying any connection at Malegaon (Nasik). These facts clearly show that assessee had been filing the return of income at Meerut even for earlier years and filed return of income for assessment year under appeal at Meerut. No material or Order under section 127 have been produced before us as to how the case of assessee was transferred from Meerut to Malegaon (Nasik). Therefore, the ITO at Malegaon (Nasik) was having no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. Admittedly, no notice under section 143(2) have been issued by ITO, Meerut who was the jurisdictional ITO in the case of the assessee. Whatever notice under section 143(2) Dated 18.09.2015 was issued by ITO, Malegaon (Nasik) was not having any jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. Therefore, it was clearly a nullity. The above facts and material on record clearly prove that ITO at Meerut having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee did not issue notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee within the period of limitation provided under the Act. Therefore, the notice issued under section 143(2) by ITO, Malegaon have no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was not valid and would not confer any jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. The entire assessment proceedings are, therefore, vitiated because of non-service of jurisdiction notice under section 143(2) within the period of limitation by ITO at Meerut having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. The assessment order is, therefore, null and void. Since the entire assessment order is null and void and as such the same is liable to be quashed. The Ld. D.R. filed copy of jurisdiction history in the case of the assessee, but, it did not provide how the case of assessee was transferred from Meerut to Malegaon for the assessment year under appeal. It would, therefore, would not support the case of the Revenue. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above decisions relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Assessee, we hold that the entire assessment order is null and void in the absence of issue and service of jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) by the ITO at Meerut having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the assessment order. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.”

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 28th May, 2021.