Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
per the actual jurisdiction on 07/09/2012 and subsequently he issued notice under section 143(2) on 20.9.2012. From the above facts, it is apparent that first notice was issued by the DCIT, Ghaziabad on 29/08/2011, who was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. It is the legality of this notice that is required to be tested. According to the provisions of section 143 (2) of the act the notice for verifying the return of income is required to be issued by the ‘assessing officer’. The assessing officer has been defined under section 2 (7A) of the act, which means the assistant Commissioner or the deputy Commissioner or assistant director or deputy director or the income tax officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by the virtue of directions order issued under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 120 or any other provisions of the act and additional Commissioner or additional director or joint Commissioner or joint director who is directed under clause (b) of subsection (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions carried on or assigned to an assessing officer under this act. Before us, no such directions issued under section 120 (1) or (2) issued in favour of DCIT, Ghaziabad was
produced. In view of this, we are unable to hold that at that relevant time he was holding jurisdiction over the assessee. As the original jurisdiction over the assessee by the DCIT, Ghaziabad could not be established the provisions of section 127 of the act are not applicable. Further, the provisions of section 124 (3) also does not come to the rescue of the revenue because in the present case the assessee is filed return of income showing the address of Meerut and subsequently according to the assessing officer actual jurisdiction lies with him, but the impugned notice issued under section 143 (2) was issued on 29/08/2011 by DCIT, circle Ghaziabad. Therefore, it is apparent that notice under section 143 (2) which should have been issued by 30/09/2011 by the correct jurisdictional officer was not issued.”
9.2 I further note that the aforesaid Division Bench decision was duly followed by the SMC Bench, in the case of Sh. Yogesh Yadav vs. ITO passed in (AY 2011-12) vide order dated 09.10.2017 being the identical facts / reasoning with the aforesaid case of Al Faheem Meatex Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and accordingly assessment framed as declared as void-ab-initio.
Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the aforesaid precedents being the identical facts of the present case, I hold the present assessment is void ab inito, hence, the same is quashed and accordingly, the additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Since I have quashed the assessment on the legal ground itself, the other grounds on merit became academic, hence, need not be adjudicated.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.