M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI TRADERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1835/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 March 2019AY 2015-162 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessment was not sustainable because the Section 143(2) notice was not issued by the Assessing Officer having territorial jurisdiction. This violated established legal principles regarding proper jurisdiction for assessments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward-36(4)) issued a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee's jurisdiction had been transferred to another officer (ITO, Ward-45(3)). The final assessment was framed by the officer who did not issue the initial notice.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessment was valid when the Section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction. The validity of an assessment framed without proper territorial jurisdiction was also considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

Hearing: 04.03.2019Pronounced: 22.03.2019

For the Appellant : Shri V.N. Purohit, FCA For the Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 ORDER

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the CIT(A)- 13, Kolkata’s order dated 11/07/2018 passed in case no. 74/CIT(A)-13/W- 45(3)/Kol/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

I notice at the outset that the first and former issue that arises for my apt adjudication in the instant list is as to whether the impugned assessment is liable to be sustained or not for territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer having issued section 143(2) notice dated 28.07.2016 by ITO, Ward-36(4), Kolkata. It emerges during the course of hearing that PCIT-12, Kolkata had transferred assessee’s jurisdiction w.e.f 12.11.2015. The above stated Assessing Officer thereafter issued section 143(2) notice dated 28.07.2016 in e-filed the assessee’s return dated 12.08.2016. The case file suggests that it is ITO, Ward-45(3), Kolkata who framed final assessment in issue dated 28.12.2017.

M/s Tirupati Balaji Traders. A.Yr. 2014-15 3. It is thus a clear cut case of non-issuance of section 143(2) notice by the Assessing Officer having territorial jurisdiction. The CIT(A) hold that the Assessing Officer has assumed jurisdiction based on PAN basis. He is fair enough in not disputing the clinching fact that the assessee’s jurisdiction already stood transferred to latter Assessing Officer who has framed assessment for preceding assessment year 2014-15 in its case on 30.09.2016. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court decision in Smt. Smriti Media Vs UOI 339 ITR 37 (Cal.) holds that such an assessment without having territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I draw support therefrom to hold that the impugned assessment framed is not valid. The same is accordingly quashed.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 22.03.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →