Ito Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad vs Shalini Gupta, Ghaziabad on 24 December, 2020
6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material
available on record. In the present case, the assessment order
came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-
16 by making an addition of Rs. 55,11,173/- u/s 69 of the on
account of unexplained investment. It is pertinent to note that the
assessment order has been passed by the Office of the Income Tax
Officer, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad and the Jurisdictional CIT(A) for the
said A.O. is CIT(A) Ghaziabad. The assessee should have filed the
Appeal challenging the Assessment Order before the CIT(A)-
Ghaziabad, but the assessee opted to file the Appeal before the
CIT(A)-1, Noida. As per the CBDT Notification No. 66/2014 dated
6 ITA No. 6815/Del/2019
ITO Vs. Shalini Gupta
13/11/2014 read with Order No. G-03/2014-15 dated 15/11/2014
on Pr. CCIT (CCA)-Kanpur, the Jurisdiction for the first appeal, in
the present case, lies to CIT(A)-Ghaziabad. Contrary to the above
Notification and the Order, the Ld. CIT(A) at Noida, passed the order
impugned without their being jurisdiction to do so. It is well settled
law that an order passed by a Court or Tribunal or Authority having
no jurisdiction is nullity and that its invalidity could be set up
whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon.
By considering the said well settled principal we are of the opinion
that the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued by the
CBDT is applicable only when the Revenue Authority passes the
order having the proper jurisdiction and the said Circular is not
applicable not applicable to the cases were the Authority passes the
order by exercising wrong jurisdiction.