Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. As the assessee has assailed before me the validity of the assessment framed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2018, therefore, I shall first deal with the same.

7. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee that as the ITO-1(1), Raipur had framed the impugned assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 30.12.2018 in absence of any valid notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, the assessment therein framed was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Elaborating on his aforesaid M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) contention, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that the notice u/s.148, dated 25.03.2018 was issued by the ITO-1(3), Raipur, i.e., an A.O who at the relevant point of time was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. On the basis of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the ITO-1(1), Raipur who was duly vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee's case had on the basis of notice issued by the aforesaid ITO-1(3), Raipur, i.e., a non- jurisdictional officer proceeded with and framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2018, therefore, the assessment so framed being devoid and bereft of any force of law was liable to be quashed. The Ld. A.R on being queried as to on what basis it was being claimed that the ITO- 1(3), Raipur was not vested with jurisdiction over the assessee's case took us through the copy of the return of income of the assessee for the year under consideration that was e-filed on 24.08.2011 with the ITO-1(3), Raipur. It was averred by the Ld. AR that as per the Notification No.1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014 the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Raipur had pursuant to the powers that were vested with him by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur in exercise of powers conferred under sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) of Section 120 of the Act, had carried out a massive restructuring /reallocation of the territorial jurisdictions of the AOs. It was the claim M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) of the Ld. AR that pursuant to the aforesaid restructuring/reallocation of the territorial jurisdictions of the AOs the ITO-1(3), Raipur was divested of his jurisdiction over the case of the assessee and, the same was thereafter vested with the ITO-1(1), Raipur. The Ld. A.R in order to drive home his aforesaid claim had taken us through a copy of the aforesaid Notification No.1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014, Page 152 to 168 of APB. Taking us through the aforesaid Notification dated 15.11.2014 (supra) the Ld. AR drew our attention to the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO-1(1), Raipur, which, inter alia, stated that the said A.O was vested with the territorial jurisdiction over all such persons other than companies deriving income from business or procession, and other than those assessable by the DCIT/ACIT-1(1), Raipur and whose principal place of business was within the territorial area of Tehsil- Abhanpur.

7.1 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee firm was carrying on its business of running a rice mill at "123, Jhanki, Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur", therefore, the jurisdiction over its case w.e.f 15.11.2014 was beyond doubt vested with the ITO-1(1), Raipur. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the fact that the ITO-1(1), Raipur was vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee could safely be gathered from the fact that the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 30.12.2018 was framed by him. On the basis of the aforesaid M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) facts, it was claimed by the Ld. AR that as pursuant to the Notification No.1/2014-15, dated 15.11.2014 as the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee at the time of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 25.03.2018 was vested with the ITO-1(1), Raipur, therefore, the assessment so framed by him on the basis of notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 25.03.2018 issued by the ITO-1(3), Raipur, Page 2 of APB could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. It was averred by the Ld. AR that the aforesaid Notification No.1/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Raipur pursuant to the power that was vested with him by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur in exercise of power conferred under Sub- section (1), (2) and (5) of Section 120 of the Act, on the basis of which, restructuring/reallocation of the territorial jurisdiction of the AOs was carried out, was binding on the department and there could be no escape from the same. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). Further, the Ld. AR in support of his contention that an assessment framed on the basis of a notice u/s.148 issued by a non-jurisdictional A.O would be devoid and bereft of any force of law had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pavan Morarka Vs. ACIT-2 (2022) 136 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay). It was M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) averred by the Ld. AR that in the aforesaid case as the A.O who had issued notice u/s.148 was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, therefore, the assessment framed by the A.O having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee by acting upon the aforesaid notice issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. Also, reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. ACIT, Circle-2 & 1 (2019) 110 taxmann.com 51 (Gujarat). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah (supra) had thereafter been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT, Circle-2 & 1 Vs. Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah (2020) 120 taxmann.com. 318 (SC). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as in the present case the jurisdiction was assumed on the basis of notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 25.03.2018 issued by the ITO-1(3), Raipur, i.e., a non-jurisdictional officer, therefore, the consequential assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 30.12.2018 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. Also, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that it was a matter of fact borne from record that the ITO-1(1), Raipur, i.e., M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) the jurisdictional A.O had not issued any notice u/s.148 of the Act prior to framing of the impugned assessment.

M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)
2. ITO,1(1), Raipur 1. All persons being companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having their registered office falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the following Assessing Officers of Range-1, Raipur a. ITO 1(1), Raipur b. ITO 1(2), Raipur c. ITO 1(3), Raipur d. ITO 1(4), Raipur M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) And whose none of the last three returns of income as on 1st April, 2014 and as on 1st April of any subsequent F.Y. shows total income/Loss of Rs.15 lakh or less.

11. I find that involving identical facts a similar had come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. UOI in W.P. No.3489 of 2019, dated 08.03.2022. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court as the notice u/s.148, dated 30.03.2019 was issued by the ITO, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai, i.e., a non-jurisdictional Officer, therefore, the High Court on a writ petition filed by the assessee assailing the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for reopening of its case on the basis of the aforesaid impugned notice, quashed the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, 30.03.2019 for the reason that the same was issued by an A.O who at the relevant point of time had no jurisdiction over the assessee-petitioner. Also, I find that M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case of Pavan Morarka Vs. ACIT-2, (2022) 136 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay). It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that as the A.O at Delhi who had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee who was being assessed at Mumbai, therefore, the subsequent reopening notice that was issued by the A.O at Mumbai after the case of the assessee was transferred to his jurisdiction could not be held to be in continuation of the proceedings which were initiated by the A.O at Delhi. To sum up, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that if an A.O who had issued notice u/s.148 was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, then, the subsequent notice issued by the jurisdictional A.O could neither be construed as a notice issued in continuation of the earlier proceedings, nor any valid assessment u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act could be framed on the basis of such notice issued by the non- jurisdictional A.O. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Prop. M/s. M.R Garments Moulviganj, Lucknow, ITA No. 100 of 2015 dated 30.03.2017. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, notice u/s.148 was issued by the ITO-(IV)(1), Lucknow who at the relevant point of time had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, as the same was already transferred to ITO-V(2), M/s. Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) Lucknow. Thereafter, as the ITO-V(2), Lucknow proceeded with and framed the assessment without issuing any notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court treating the notice u/s 148 issued by the ITO-(IV)(1), Lucknow as invalid upheld the view taken by the Tribunal which had quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional A.O., i.e, ITO-(IV)(1), Lucknow. Apart from that, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of MI Builders (P) Ltd. (2014) 349 ITR 271 (Allahabad). It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that as the jurisdiction of the A.O was transferred before issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by him, therefore, the notice so issued would be without jurisdiction.