Minimax Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Raipur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2(1), Raipur

ITA 20/RPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3778 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: R B DOSHI
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 292BB; 143(2); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.20/RPR/2021 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD, 11/146, CHIKNI MANDIR, MALVIYA ROAD, RAIPUR (CG), CHHATTISGARH / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1), RAIPUR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM 9116 B ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.B. DOSHI, CA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. MISHRA , CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING 30.07.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.10.2021 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE PRINCI PAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT IN SHORT), RAIPUR-1 COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.03.2021 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT) WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) DATED 28.12.2019 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY IN SHORT) 2017- 18 WAS SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR REFRAMING THE ASS ESSMENT IN TERMS OF SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION. 2. AS PER ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE REVISIONAL ACTION OF THE PCIT WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 2 - DIRECTED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DE NOVO AFTER MAKING ENQUIRIES ON THE POINTS SET OUT IN THE NOTICE WHICH HAS ALREA DY EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS CONCERNING AY 2017-18. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION BY THE PCIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVISION IS NEITHER ERRONEOU S NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE INSTANT CA SE WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28 .12.2019 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATIONED AT RAIPUR [ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR] WHEREBY THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING LOSS OF RS. (-) 98,81,342/- WAS ASSESSED WITHOUT ANY ADJUST MENTS. THEREAFTER, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 263 O F THE ACT, THE CASE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE WERE CALLED BY TH E REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER (PCIT), RAIPUR-1. THE PCIT OBSERVED TH AT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS I T IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 01.01.2021 WAS THUS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD BY T HE PCIT. AS PER THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER ALLE GED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING POINTS:- I) THE PROFIT ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND; II) CORRECTNESS OF FIGURES OF SPECULATION PROFIT; III) CORRECTNESS OF SHORT TERM PROFITS ON SALE OF SHARES ; IV) CORRECTNESS OF CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED; V) CORRECTNESS OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF TH E ACT; VI) NATURE AND SOURCE OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.41,79,309 /- ; ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 3 - VII) INCOME DERIVED FROM FIXED ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIAT ION HAS BEEN CLAIMED. 4. THE PCIT ULTIMATELY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT NECESSARY INQUIRIE S IN THE CASE AND FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS ON LACK O F JURISDICTION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACTION OF PCIT ALSO DEVOID OF ANY ME RITS. THE KEY POINTS OF SUCH SUBMISSIONS ARE BROADLY NOTED HEREUN DER:- (I) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF RE VISION, IN ITSELF, IS ILLEGAL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT RAIPUR DID NOT ISSUE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT; AND, THEREFO RE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO AT RAIPUR IS OUSTED FROM FRA MING ASSESSMENT ORDER; (II) THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO-RAIPUR ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE FIRST NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 09.08.2018 ISSUED BY ITO, WARD 4(2), KOLKATA (PAGE NOS. 11 & 12 OF THE PAPER-BOOK). IT IS THIS NOTICE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH JURISDICTION WAS USURPED BY THE AO, RAIPUR TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, SUBMITTED IN THE SAME V AIN, THE AO AT KOLKATA HAD NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE AT THE RELEVANT TIME FOR THE REASON THAT THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED LONG BACK VIDE AN ORDER UND ER ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 4 - SECTION 127 DATED 13.09.2013 FROM JURISDICTION OF A O- KOLKATA (ITO, WARD 4(2), KOLKATA) TO AO-RAIPUR (ACI T- CENTRAL, RAIPUR). IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT IN TH E WAKE OF TOTAL ABSENCE OF AUTHORITY TO ASSESS THE RETURN OF ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION B Y THE AO, KOLKATA BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IN ITSELF IS PRIMA FACIE ILLEGAL AND, AS A COROLLARY, THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, RAIPUR BASED ON SUCH ILLEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY AO-KOLKATA UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW ON FACTS, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL ADVERTED TO THE TRANSFER ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT DATED 13.09.2013, AS ANNEXED AT PAGE NOS.13 AND 14 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. 6.1 THE LEARNED COUNSEL NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2014-15 WAS ALSO SIMILARLY SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER AT KOLKATA ON 01.09.2015; HOWEVER , THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SO INITIATED FOR AY 2014-15 WERE DROPPE D BY THE AO, KOLKATA ON BEING APPRISED OF THE FACT OF THE TRANSF ER OF JURISDICTION. IT IS THUS MANIFEST THAT WHERE THE AO, KOLKATA DROP PED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2014-15 ON PARALLEL SET OF FACTS , HE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT STAND AND ISSUE NOTICE FOR SUBSEQ UENT AY 2017-18 IN QUESTION WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY COMMAND OVER THE ASSESS EE. HE THUS CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF A INVALID AND INFRUCTUOUS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS IN VIOLATION OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS WHOLL Y UNSUSTAINABLE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO , RAIPUR UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO , RAIPUR HAS MERELY CONTINUED TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION ON TH E BASIS OF A NON EST NOTICE ISSUED BY AO, KOLKARA EARLIER. IT WAS THUS REITERATED THAT IN ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 5 - THE ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY T HE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AB INITIO AND ILLEGAL. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION O F CIT VS. PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT LTD (GUJ.) (TAX APPEAL NO.435 OF 2011) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 292BB WOULD NO T COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE AND SAVE THE NOTICE WHERE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ITSELF IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND FUNDAMENT ALLY ILLEGAL. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT NEITHER CURE S THE DEFECTS NOR ENLARGES THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH IS MANDATORY IN NATURE. IT WAS THU S CONTENDED IN SHORT THAT WHERE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTIO N 143(2) OF THE ACT BY A NON-JURISDICTIONAL AO STATIONED AT A DIFFERENT PLACE AND NO SUCH NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL AO, TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONTINUED ON THE BA SIS OF AN ILLEGAL NOTICE BY A NON-JURISDICTIONAL AO. IT WAS THUS SUBM ITTED THAT THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVISION PASSED AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF SUCH ILLEGAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS NULL AN D VOID. 6.2 ASSERTING FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT A REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN TAKE PLACE OF AN O RDER WHICH MUST LEGALLY EXIST IN LAW. WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I S ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO, AS DEMONSTRATED, IT CANNOT BE REVISED AND PERFECTED BY AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PROP OSITION, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD VS. PCIT IN ITA NO.2269/DEL/2017, ORDER DATED 10.12.2018, WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW, THE SAME CANNOT BE REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 6 - 6.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER YET AGAIN POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 292BB IS RESTRICTED IN ITS SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY; AND, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CURE ANY A ND EVERY DEFECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF LONG LINE OF JUD ICIAL PRECEDENTS, THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE OF SECTION 292BB IS CLEAR. SEC TION 292BB DEALS WITH SERVICE OF NOTICE AND NOT ISSUE OF NOTICE. TH E VERY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY A NON-JURISDICTIONAL AO (AFTER SPECIFIC TRANSFER OF THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT ) IS IN CHALLENGE. SUCH FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT B ASED ON A NON EST NOTICE IS SUBSTANTIAL AND CANNOT BE CURED WITH THE AID OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT WHICH IS MEANT TO RECTIFY ERROR IN SERVICE OF NOTICE. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 292BB IS NOT INTENDED TO CURE COMPLETE ABSE NCE OF NOTICE ITSELF. ANOTHER REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF ACIT VS. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 379 ITR 14 (ALL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 292BB DEALS WITH S ERVICE OF NOTICE AND WHERE THE INITIAL LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WAS NOT MET BY THE AO, THE DEEMING FICTION TOWARDS CURE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 292BB WOULD NOT ARISE. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID NOTICE I SSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY THE JURISDICTIONAL AO AT THE RELEVANT TIM E, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, BASED ON SUCH NOTICE, IS A NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT BE REVISED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 6.4 THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO ADDRESSED THE TRIBUNAL IN LENGTH ON ASPECT OF THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND ATT EMPTED TO DEMOLISH THE PERCEPTION OF THE PCIT THAT THE ACTION OF THE A O ON MERITS IS EITHER ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 7 - HOWEVER, SINCE A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ON LEGALITY O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVISION IS IN QUESTION, WE DO NOT CONS IDER IT EXPEDIENT TO RECORD LENGTHY SUBMISSION MADE IN THIS REGARD AT TH IS STAGE. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS SHALL BE DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY, WHERE THE QUESTION OF ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON MER ITS SO ARISES. 7. THE LEARNED CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ATTEMPTED TO DEFEND THE ACTION OF THE PCIT AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT I N THE INSTANT CASE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER SUCH NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AO STATIONED AT KOLKATA O R BY THE AO STATIONED AT RAIPUR. ONCE A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR AO TO CARRY OUT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED AT ALL. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY RAISING A TECHNICAL POINT THAT T HE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE JUR ISDICTIONAL AO STATIONED AT RAIPUR WHO HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO PREJUDICE PER SE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE BY AO, KOLKATA. THE LEARNED CIT-DR THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE PCIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE REVISIONAL POWERS OF A VALI D AND SUBSISTING ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND HENCE N O INTERFERENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CALLED FOR. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. AS NOTED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED ON THE BASIS O F AN INVALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE VERY PREMISE O F THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS. CONSEQUENT THER ETO, THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 8 - ORDER IN ITSELF IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW OWING TO SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE ACTION OF THE PCIT TO RE VISE SUCH ILLEGAL ORDER IS A COMPLETE NON-STARTER AND IS WHOLLY UNSUS TAINABLE IN LAW. 9. TO ADDRESS THE POINT, WE NOTICE A FEW FACTS. AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(2)(A) DATED 13.09.2013 WAS PASSED BY TH E CIT, KOLKATA- II, KOLKATA WHEREBY THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSES SEE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ITO, WARD (4)(2), KOLKATA TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAIPUR. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE AFORESAID TRANSFER ORDER THAT THE ORDER SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT. HENCE, IN V IEW OF THE AFORESAID TRANSFER ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT KOLKATA WA S OUSTED OF ITS JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD NO LOCUS OVER THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF AFORESAID TRANSFER ORDER. THE AO AT KOLKAT A WAS FULLY AWARE OF THIS FACT, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM HIS ACTION, IN RE SPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE , THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(2) WERE DROPPED BY AO, KOLKATA FO R AY 2014-15 WHEN HE WAS APPRISED OF THE FACT OF TRANSFER OF JUR ISDICTION. THE FACTS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, ARE THUS SPEAKING FOR I TSELF. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO, KOLKATA AT THE RELEVANT TIME O F ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 09.08.2018 COMPLETELY LA CKED JURISDICTION OVER ASSESSEE TO DO SO. 10. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS GOVERNED BY STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES. ON A COMBINED R EADING OF SECTIONS 120(1), 120 (2), 124(1), RULE 12E OF THE IT RULES, 1962 AND TRANSFER ORDER PASSED BY CIT UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, W E HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO VALID JURISDIC TION AVAILABLE WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KOLKATA IN T HE INSTANT CASE. THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT B Y SUCH OFFICER IS THUS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS A NON EST NOTICE. THE ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 9 - ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADMITTEDLY FRAMED BASED ON SUCH NON EST NOTICE WITHOUT TAKING ANY CORRECTIVE STEP IN THIS DIRECTIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RAIPUR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SEPARATE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) TO ASSUME POWER TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS MERELY CONTINUED HIS ACTION BASED ON A NON EST NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO OF A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED ON THE BASIS OF AN INVALID AND NON EST NOTICE THUS CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED IN LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVISIONAL ACTION UNDER SECT ION 263 IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW IN PARITY WITH THE DECISION OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGIES (P ) LTD VS. PCIT (SUPRA). 11. WE THUS FIND PRIMA FACIE MERIT IN THE LEGAL GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED REVISIONAL ORDER IS THUS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. HENCE WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO GO INTO THE ASPECT OF THE MERIT OF ISSUES RAISED IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ARISING FROM AN INVALID AND NON EST ORDER. 12. THE REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS THUS QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED ON 11.10.2021 AS PER RULE 34(4) OF THE I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER BT ITA NO. 20/RPR/2021 MINIMAX COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. ACIT AY : 2017-18 - 10 - TRUE COPY / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR 1.DATE OF DICTATION ON ..04.10.2021.. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 04.10.2021 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 11.10.2021.. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 11.10.2021 .. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 11.10.2021 .. 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER