Divine Light Finance Ltd., Surat V. I.T.O.,Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 1591/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5159 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RANU BISWAS CITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 6; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1591/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD. A-402, INDIA TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT [ PAN NO.AAACD 9012 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT MRS. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 29-01-2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-02-2020 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-15, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.242/CIT(A)-15/18-19/WD-9(1)/R&T/KOL, INV OLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE A CT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. CASE FILE SUGGESTS AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING ASSESSING OFFICERS TERRITORIAL JURISDI CTION AS PER CBDTS NOTIFICATION NO.50 OF 2014 W.E.F. 15.11.2014 DEFINING JURISDICTI ON AS PER THE POSTAL PIN. MR. SURANA NEXT INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEES RETURN DATED 14.09.2014 FILED AT SURAT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN KOLKATA HAS FRAMED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. THE REVENUES CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A STOPPED FROM ITA NO.1591/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(1) , KOL. PAGE 2 CHALLENGING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT THIS BELATE D STAGE WHEREIN THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FRAMED THE SAME AS PER LAW. 3. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVA L CONTENTIONS. HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISION IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (1998) 29 ITR 383 (SC) AS CONSIDERED IN ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTIC LTD. VS. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 24 (MUM) (SB) HOLDS THAT AN ADDITIO NAL GROUND CAN VERY WELL ALLOWED TO BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN OR DER TO DETERMINE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME PROVIDED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECOR D. I MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF AS IT HA D FILED ITS RETURN IN SURAT ONLY AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM A PERUSAL THEREOF IN PAGE-1 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. I FURTHER FIND FROM PAGE 2 IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE DEPARTMENTS RECORD ALSO SUGGESTS THE ASSESSEES JURISDICTION IS IN SURAT ONLY. THE SAME MAKES IT CLEAR SUFFICIEN TLY CLEAR THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IN KOLKATA SUFFERS FROM LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDI CTION. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS ORDER IN ITA NO.236/KOL/2015 EMAMI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, KOLKATA DECIDED ON 02.06.2017 HOLDS THAT SUCH A LACUNA IS FATAL TO THE REVENUES CASE AS UNDER:- 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE PROC EEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO ERROR SO FAR PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A LIMI TED COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY ITO WARD-12(2) KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THE REAFTER LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT OBSERVED CERTAIN ERRORS IN SO FAR AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS DETAILED AS UNDER:- (I) THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA S TAKEN LOAN OF 227,94,54,247/- ON WHICH INTEREST EXPENSE OF 23,41,50,202/- WAS INCURRED. THE INTEREST ON SUCH LOAN WAS PAID @ 10.27% PER ANN UM. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN OF 164,12,61,365/- ON INTEREST @ 10.07% PER ANNUM. THUS A DIFFERENCE OF 0.19% IN THE RATE OF IN TEREST WAS FOUND AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND BEARING MORE BURDE N OF INTEREST EXPENSE BY RS. 27,15,7124.00 ONLY. THEREFORE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER ASSESSED BY 27,15,724/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIGHER PAYMENT OF INTERE ST. II) THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF A SUM OF 2.45 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM INVESTMENT WRITTEN OFF UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES . ITA NO.1591/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(1) , KOL. PAGE 3 THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH, IN FACT, BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THUS, THERE WAS UNDER ASSESSMENT OF TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY 2.45 LAKH ONLY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, A NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 19.08.2014 FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND T O CLARIFY THE AFORESAID ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE THERETO SUBMITTED THAT THE L OAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF THE COMMON FUND AND IT WAS DEPLOYED SOLELY FOR COMMERCIAL PURP OSE. IT IS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY THAT THE ALL THE INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS WILL GENERAT E DESIRE RATE OF RETURN AND EVEN AT SOME TIMES THE INVESTMENT MAY INCUR THE LOSSES. THE REFORE IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO HOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN THE AFORESAID FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LONG TER M INVESTMENT WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE IT IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AS IRRECOVERABLE BAD DEBT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER OF AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE POINTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE BY OBSERVING THAT THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST AND LONG TERM INVESTMENT WRITTEN OFF WERE NOT VERIFIED BY THE AO IN ITS ORDER DATED 21.03.2013 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE T HE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KO LKATA-IV, KOLKATA ERRED IN ARBITRARILY INITIATING THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE AP PELLANT COMPANY, IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLK ATA-IV, KOLKATA HAD NO JURISDICTION, TERRITORIAL OR OTHERWISE, WHATSOEVER, TO PASS THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE SAID ACT ON 19 TH JANUARY 2015, IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11, IN VIEW OF CBDT NOTIFICATION NO. SO.2752(E) DT. 22/10/2014. 3. THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INITIATION OF THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 263, WERE NEITHER PRESENT NOR SATISFIED, IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE A PPELLANT COMPANY HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLK ATA-IV, KOLKATA DID NOT ARRIVE AT MANDATORY REQUISITE SATISFACTION OF EXIST ENCE OF BOTH THE PRE- CONDITIONS I.E. THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE STIPULATED IN SECTION 263 AND THE SAME WAS WRONGLY LEFT TO BE ITA NO.1591/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(1) , KOL. PAGE 4 EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SUCH THE IMPUG NED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT VALID IN LAW. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER ITO WARD 12(2) KOLKATA OF THE SAID ACT DATED 21/03/2013 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11, IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. 6.THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WRITE-OFF OF LONG TERM INVESTMENTS OF RS.245000 IS NOT CAPITAL IN NAT URE AND IS ALLOWABLE EITHER UNDER SECTION 28(I) OF 36(VII) OR 37 OF THE ACT. 7. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN INTEREST EARNED AND INTEREST PA ID AND THE ENTIRE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED BY THE APPE LLANT COMPANY FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY IS FULLY ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC TION 36(1)(III) IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY INTEREST EARNING. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TOAD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 4. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FILED PAPER BO OK WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 86 AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT HAS PASSED THE IMP UGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS COMPLETED ON 21.03.2013 AND SU BSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS PICKED UP U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT BY ISSUING NOT ICE DATED 19.08.2014. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT MADE A SUBMISSION DATED 22.09.2014 BEFORE LD.CIT(A). AT THE RELEVANT TIME W HEN THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, THE LD.CIT WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY THE CBDT ISSUED NOTIFICATION NO S.O. 2752(E) DATED 22.10.2014 WHEREBY THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS TRAN SFERRED TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II KOLKATA FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX-IV KOLKATA. LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM DREW OUR AT TENTION ON THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT VIDE NO. SO 2752(E) DATED 22.10.2014 WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 1 TO 11 I N THE COMPILATION OF THE CASE LAWS FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE W AS CHANGED FROM LD. CIT-IV TO LD. CIT-II ON THE BASIS OF PIN CODE WHERE THE REGISTERE D OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED. REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES U NDER PIN CODE 700107 AND AS PER THE CBDTS INSTRUCTION, IT FELL UNDER THE JURISDICT ION OF LD. CIT(A)-II KOLKATA. BESIDES THE ABOVE, LD. AR ALSO FILED LETTER WHICH W AS WRITTEN BY ITO WARD-12(2) KOLKATA TO THE ITO WARD 6(4) FOR TRANSFERRING THE NECESSARY FILES SUBSEQUENT TO THE CHANGE OF JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE. THE COPY OF SAID LETTER DATED 28.10.2014 IS PLACED ON PAGE 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE AC T DATED 19.01.2016 HOLDING THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE NAT URE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND ITS JURISDICTION AS PER THE NOT IFICATION LIES WITH THE EXISTING LD. ITA NO.1591/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(1) , KOL. PAGE 5 CIT-IV KOLKATA. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BY L D. AR REGARDING THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE DEPENDS UPON THE PIN C ODE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT( A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE US LD. AR HAS RAISED TH E TECHNICAL ISSUE BY CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF LD. CIT-IV OVER THE ISSUE ON TH E GROUND THAT FILE OF ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO LD. CIT-II KOLKATA BY THE CIRCULAR O F CBDT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY ITO WARD-12(2) TO ITO WAR D-6(4) IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO PROVE THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS C HANGED FROM LD. CIT-IV TO LD. CIT-II KOLKATA. ON BEING QUERY RAISED TO THE ASSESS EE FROM THE BENCH ABOUT THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE TO LD. C IT-IV ABOUT THE CHANGE OF JURISDICTION. TO THIS POINT THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED ON 22.09.2014 AS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE DATED 19.01.2015. THEREAFTER THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION FROM THE LD. CIT(A)-IV KOLKATA. MOREOVER, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS CHANGED BY THE CBDT NOTIFICATION DATED 22.10.2014 WHICH WAS SUBSEQ UENT TO THE LAST DATE OF HEARING BEFORE LD. CIT-IV KOLKATA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER LD. CIT-IV OVER THE ASSESSEE WHI CH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CBDTS NOTIFICATION AS WELL AS FROM THE LETTER WRITTEN ISS UED BY ITO WARD-12(2). THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY LD. CIT IS WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD SUCH ORDER PASSED WITHOUT HAVING VALID JURISDICTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW IN THE CASE OF RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. V. PRINCIPAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (20116) 383 ITR 546 (CAL) AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 143(2) BY THE TRANSFEREE- ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 1 8-3-2013. THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER HAS TO BE CONFERRED BY LAW. THE JURISDICTION IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATE D 3-9-2012 BY NO OTHER THAN THE COMMISSIONER, KOLKATA-II HIMSELF. ONCE THA T WAS DONE, THE COMMISSIONER, KOLKATA-II LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE M ATTER. HE BECAME 'FUNCTUS OFFICIO'. APPLYING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SBI V. S.N. GOYAL [2009] 8 SCC 92, THE COURT IS OF OPINION THAT THE COMMISSI ONER, KOLKATA-II HAD BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO PRIOR TO 18-3-2013, BECAUSE THE TRANSFEREE- ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASSUMED JURISDICTION WITHOUT WHICH THE NOTICE DATED 18 -3-2013 UNDER SEC TION 143(2) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF TRANSFER WAS D ULY PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED AND/OR COMMUNICATED AND THEREAFTER ACTED UPON BY THE TRANS FEREE-ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTIC E DATED 18-3-201 3 UNDER SECTION 263 AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 26-3- 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 BY THE COMMISSIONER, KOLKATA-II WERE ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THERE FORE A NULLITY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE FIND THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE T O THE INSTANT FACTS OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT HAD NO JURISDICT ION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT DATED 19.01.2015. THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDE R PASSED BY LD. CIT IS ERRONEOUS IN ITA NO.1591/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(1) , KOL. PAGE 6 SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. A S WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON TECHNICAL GROUND, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADJUDICATE THE REMAINING ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. H ENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . I ADOPT THE FOREGOING DETAILED REASONING MUTATIS MU TANDIS TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT SINCE SUFFERING FROM LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. ALL THESE ISSUES ON MERITS ARE RAISED INFRUCTUOUS. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/02/2020 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 19/02/2020 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DIVINE LIGHT FINANCE LTD., A-402, INDIA TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT-39 5002 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-9(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWR INGHEE SQ.KOL-69 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ ',