I.T.O., WARD-32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KAYCEE TRADING CO., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 142/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 December 2016AY 2007-20084 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in concluding that the ITO, Ward-32(1) did not have the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. This was because the jurisdiction had been specifically assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range-32 and there was no record of it being withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of loss for AY 2007-08. The assessment was initially completed by the Addl. CIT, Range-32. Subsequently, a fresh assessment order was passed by ITO, Ward-32(1) after a remand from the Tribunal. The CIT(A) held that the ITO, Ward-32(1) lacked jurisdiction for this assessment.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the ITO, Ward-32(1) had the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order when the powers had been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range-32.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 124,Section 120,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM ]

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-9, Kolkata dated 10.11.2014 for AY 2007-08.

2.

Ground Nos.1,2 and 3 raised by the revenue are in respect of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessment order passed by the AO is with out jurisdiction.

3.

The brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y.2007- 08 on 13.11.2007 disclosing a loss of Rs.8,72,967/-. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The case was assessed u/s 144 of the Act on a total income of Rs.1,23,86,720/- on 31.12.2009 by Addl. CIT , Range-32. The AO passed the order by assuming the gross profit at 8% . Being aggrieved by the order of AO the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who disposed off the appeal directing the AO to estimate the gross profit at 4%. On appeal against the order the Tribunal Kolkata bench set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the issue to the file of AO with the direction that he shall decide the same afresh after affording opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

2 M/s. Kaycee Trading Co. A.Yr.2007-08 Thereafter we take note that the impugned assessment order has been passed by ITO- Ward-32(1), Kolkata after the remand order passed by the Tribunal. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued by ITO-Wd-32(1), Kolkata and assessment was completed by the said ITO by order dated 04.02.2013 which was challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee raised the jurisdiction of ITO-Ward-32(1) which was allowed by the ld. CIT(A). The action of the ld.CIT(A)has been challenged by the revenue before us.

4.

None appeared on behalf of both the parties. However, after going through the records and appeal filed we are of the opinion that we can dispose of this appeal with the help of the records which are before us.

5.

We have gone through the records carefully and have gone through the orders passed by the AO as well as the impugned order of ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that the CIT-11, Kolkata u/s 124(4)(b) of the Act by an order dated 14.09.2009 by which he assigned the powers and functions conferred on the AO under the Act of the assessee’s case to Addl. CIT,Range-32, Kolkata. The ld. CIT(A) also took note of the fact that the Addl.CIT, Range-32 while passing the assessment order dated 31.12.2009 has specifically mentioned the aforesaid fact that CIT-11, Kolkata by order dated 14.09.2009 has empowered him the jurisdiction to pass the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2007-08. Empowered with the said order of the CIT-11, Kolkata, only the Addl. CIT,Range-32 passed the assessment order for A.Y.2007-08 in the case of the assessee by order dated 31.12.2009. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) noticed that there was nothing on record to show that the power to assess the assessee for A.Y.2007-08 has been withdrawn from the Addl. CIT,Range-32 for A.Y.2007-08. Since there was no record to suggest that the CIT has withdrawn the jurisdiction of the assessee for the A.Y.2007-08 from the Addl. CIT,Range-32 for the assessment year in question, the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that ITO-Wd.32(1) cannot usurp the jurisdiction when it 2

3 M/s. Kaycee Trading Co. A.Yr.2007-08 has been taken away specifically from him i.e. ITO, Ward-32 and entrusted it to the Addl. CIT, Range-32 by CIT u/s 120 of the Act. In such a scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). From a perusal of the grounds of appeal we do not find that the revenue’s ground does not suggest in any manner that the CIT- XI, Kolkata has withdrawn the order entrusting the jurisdiction from the ITO to the Addl. CIT, Range-32. So without being divested the jurisdiction from Addl.CIT,Range- 32 to assess the assessee for A.Y.2007-08 and grant him the jurisdiction back to ITO, Ward-32(1), he has no jurisdiction to assess the assessee for A.Y.2007-08. So we do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the revenue. Therefore we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

6.

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 28.12.2016.

More judgments on Section 124

All 154 judgments and leading authorities on Section 124 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →