ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Anamika Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2179/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4581 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 13; 22; 131; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLESHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND HONB LESHRI S.S. GODARA, JM] ITA N O.2179/KOL/2016 A.Y 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. ANAMIKA DEALCOM PVT.LTD WARD 10(1), AD-76, SALT LA KE CITY, SECTOR P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 3 RD KOLKATA-64 FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 PAN NO. AAICA 4631 Q ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) C.O NO. 34/KOL/2019 [A/O ITA NO. 2179/KOL/2016] ANAMIKA DEALCOM PVT.LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER AD-76, SALT LAKE CITY WARD-10(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHE E SQUARE SECTOR, KOLKATKA-64 KOLKATA-69 ( /CROSS-OBJECTOR ) ( /RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE, /BY RESPONDENT : SMT.RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) : 19-10-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -10-2020 ORDER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM : THIS REVENUE APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIO N FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13ARISE AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPE ALS)-4 KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.740/CIT(A)-4/WARD-10(1 )/KOL/15-16 REVERSING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION TREATING THE LATTERS SH ARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM OF RS. 6 2 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 2 CRORES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 22-03-2015 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT ACT); RESPECTIVELY. HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED . 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN ITS APPEAL ITA NO. 2179/KOL/2016 PLEADS THAT THE IN ASSESSING OFFICER S ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD RIGHTLY INVOKED THE ABOVE STATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASS ESSEES FAILURE IN DISCHARGING ONUS OF IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUMS INVESTORS OF RS. 6 CRORES. THE REVENUE SEEKS TO REV IVE THE SAID ADDITION WHICH STANDS DELETED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. MR. GHOSH INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEE S PLEADINGS IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION NO. 34/KOL/2019 THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW FOR WANT OF A VALID OF SECTION 143(2) NOTICE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY RAISED THE INSTANT PLEA FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE, T HEREFORE, AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE DEPARTMENT TO REBUT THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE RECEIVED A REPORT FROM OFFICE OF THE AD DL. CIT-DR, ITAT, KOLKATA DATED 29-01-2020 INTER-ALIA STATING THEREIN THAT TH E ITO, WARD 24(3) KOLKATA HAD ISSUED SECTION 143(2) NOTICE DATED 07.08.2013 TO THE ASSES SEE WHEREAS THE SECTION 143(3) ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN FRAMED BY TRO-4, K OLKATA (ACTING AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER). IT IS FURTHER OVERTAKEN STATED THEREIN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 30-09-2012 FOLLOWED BY ITO, WARD 24(3), KOLKATA ISS UED SECTION 143(2) NOTICE DATED 07-08-2013 TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ITO, WARD- 10(1) KOLKATA VIDE ORDER DATED 24- 10-2013 AND FURTHER ASSIGNED TO THE TRO-4 KOLKATA D ATED 22.09.2014, TAXPAYERS APPEARANCE ON 05-09-2013 ALONGWITH AUDIT REPORT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 22-03-2015. IT IS FUR THER HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD 3 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 3 NEVER OBJECTED TO ASSESSING OFFICERS THROUGHOUT JU RISDICTION IN AND THEREFORE, IT IS STOPPED FROM RAISING ANY SUCH PLEA IN VIEW OF SEC. 120,124 AND 127 OF THE ACT& CASE LAW HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11844/2016 ABHISHEK JAIN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER DATED 01-06-2018, (2014) 46 TAXM AN.COM 169 (DEL) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. S.S. AHLUWALIA &, (1972) 84 ITR 2 6 (CAL), SMT SUMITRA DEVI KHIRWAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE ABOVE QUESTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS JURISDICTION GOING TO ROOT OF THE MATTER. WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE HERE THAT REVENUE ITSELF IS FAIR ENOUGH IN ADMITTING THE CLIN CHING FACT THAT ITO, WARD 24(3), KOLKATA ONLY HAD ISSUED 143(2) NOTICE DATED 07-08- 2013 TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT HAVING HIS JURISDICTION SINCE IT WAS THE TRO-4, KOLKATA WH O WAS SUPPOSED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT IN THE TAXPAYERS CASE. THE LATTER AUTHORITY NEVER ISSUED SEC.143(2) NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE CAN HARDLY BE ANY DISPUTE THAT ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) FROM THE COMPETENT ASSESSING OFFICER IS A MANDATORY CONDITIO N AS PER ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362. THIS TRIBUNALS IN D. CRAFT ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA IN ITA NO. 1461/KOL/2017 DECIDED ON 01.10.2018 HOLDS THAT SUCH AN ASSESSMENT IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 143(2 ) NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION IS RENDERED INVALID A S UNDER:- 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LEGAL ISSUES BY PREFERRIN G ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL (I) THAT NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ' ACT ') WAS ISSUED BY ITO, WARD-6(L), KOLKATA (WHO FRAMED T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER) WAS ISSUED OR SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND N O. (II) IS THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO, WARD NO. 34(2) , KOLKATA U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT JURISDIC TION, HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-6(L), KOLKATA WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3 . BRIEFLY STATED FACT S A S OBSERVED BY THE AO, WARD NO. 6(1), KOLKATA ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8950/- . LATER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ~ SER V ED FROM OFFICE OF ITO, WARD-34(2). THEN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA AND A NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED FROM THIS WARD. ACCOR DING TO AO, SUMMONS U/S. 131 4 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 4 OF THE ACT WERE SENT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY BUT SUMMONS WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED AND NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREAFTER, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH SPEED POST WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED UN-SERVED. AS NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TILL THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO WAS LET WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PASS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 13.03.2015 U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 21 . 01 . 2 00 9 A ND HAS SHOWN THE FIGURE OF R S.15,36,90,0001- AS SHARE PREMIUM DURING THEASS E SSMEN T YEAR UN D ER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO AO, THE SOURCE OF HU GE PREMIUM HAS NOT BE E N EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, CON SIDERING THE ABOVE SHARE CAPITAL CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO HAVE BEE N INTRODUCED DURING THE FY 2011-12 WITH HIGH PRE M IUM AMOUNTING TO RS.15,66,00,OOOI- (SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.29,1O,0001- + PREMIUM OF RS.15,36,90,0001-) WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S. 68 OF THE ACT . AGGRIEVED, BY THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D GONE TH ROUG H TH E FA C T S AND CI R CUMSTANCES O F TH E CASE. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR WH I LE RAISING THE LE GAL I SSUE CON T ENDED THAT NO NO T ICE WAS ISS U ED BY THE ITO, WARD-6(1) , KOLKATA U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT AND WHICH WA S SERVED UPO N THE A SS E SS EE; AND EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS BY IT O , WARD -3 4(2) , KOLKATA [ AS PER ITO , WARD -6(1) ] WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ASSESS T H E C ORPORATE ENTITY LIKE THE A S SE SS EE COMPANY , HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE A O (ITO , WARD - 6 ( 1 ), KOLKATA ) WITHOUT I S SUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) UPON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ' N ULL ' I N THE E YES OF LA W AND , THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. A R TH A T TH E A SS E SS E E C OMPANY DID NOT RECEIVE ANY SCRUTINY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT F ROM ITO , WARD -3 4 (2), KOLKATA THOUGH IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO I N THE ASS E SS MENT ORDER B Y ITO , WARD-6(1) , KOLKATA. SINCE THE ASSE S SEE DID NOT RE CEIV E AN Y NOT IC E THE A SS E S SEE COMPAN Y COULD NOT REPRESENT OR FILE DOCUMENT S AND COMPLY BEFO R E THE ITO THE SAID PROCEEDIN GS. IT W A S A L S O S UBMITTED B Y THE LD. AR TH A T T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PURPORTED TRANSFER OF JURISDIC TION FROM ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA SINCE IT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOT ICE U/S. 127 OF THE ACT FROM THE PR. CIT - 12, KOLKATA TRANSFERRING THE FILE FROM ITO, WARD-34 (2), KOLKATA TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE U/S . 142(1) OF THE ACT FROM ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA AS S TATED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . BECAUSE OF WHICH THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE P ART OF ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA . LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY'S REGISTERED OFFICE IS SITUATED AT 8, LYONS RANGE, KOLKATA- 700001, THEREFORE, THE TERRITORIAL AND ENTITY-WISE JURISDICTION WERE VESTED WITH ITO, WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA BY VIRTUE OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY C BDT U/S. 120 OF THE ACT DATED 31 . 07.2001 ( NOTIFICATION NO. 228/2001 ) AND ALSO BY VIRTUE OF LATEST NOTIFICATION NO . 50/2014 DATED 22.10.2014. SO, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, SINCE THE ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA DID NOT ENJOY ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THUS THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA AGAINST THE ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 5 COMPANY WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SO, BAD IN LAW AND , THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY AN OFFICER/AUTHORITY WHO DOES NOT ENJOY JURISDICTION I S NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. LD . AR ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE CLAIM OF ITO, WARD-6 (1), KOLKATA IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE FILE OF ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA IS ITSELF ILLEGAL SINCEIT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT IN THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE WAS NO REFERENCE OR MENTION BY THE AO (ITO WARD-6(L), KOLK ATA) OF ANY ORDER OF TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION PASSED BY THE CONCERNED PR. CIT U/S . 127 OF THE ACT . ACCORDING TO LD. AR, IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITH ANY SUCH ORDER I.E . TRANSFER ORDER U/S . 127, OR NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OR 142(1) ETC . THUS, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE TRANSFER OF FILE FRO M ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA ITSE LF IS BAD IN LAW; AND IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO , WARD-6(1) WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME AS STATUTE STIPULATES IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A). 5 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CORPORATE ENTITY, BEING A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVIN G REGISTERED OFFICE IN THE AREA MENTIONED IN ITEM ( A) OF COLUMN (4) I.E PIN 700 001 OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 228/2001 DATED 31.07.20 01 (PAGE 18 OF PAPER BOOK) ISSUED BY CBDT U/S. 120 OF THE ACT AND ALSO IN REFE RENCE TO LATER NOTIFICATION OF CBDT NO. 50/2014 DATED 22.10.2014. THE DESIGNATED INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITY AS PER SERIAL NO. 159 IS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER/COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, HEADQUARTER IS KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL (PAGE 14 OF PAP ER BOOK). WHEREAS A PERUSAL OF NOTIFICATION OF CBDT NO. 228/2001 DATED 31.07.2001 (PAGE 20 OF PAPER BOOK) REVEALS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XI I HAS JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS OTHER THAN COMPANIES DERIVING INCOME FROM SOURCES O THER THAN INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ( THOUGH RESIDING IN PIN 700001 ). WE ALSO NOTE FROM NOTIFICATION NO. 50/2014 DATED 15.11 . 2014 , ISSUED FROM THE O FFICE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL & SIKKIM WHICH TAKE S EFFECT FROM 15.11 . 2014 (PAGE 5 OF PAPER BOOK) THAT PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, IS THE D ESIGNATED OFFICER AND UNDER HIM ADD L CLTL/JT. . CIT, RANGE-6, KOLKATA HAS BEEN PLACED UNDER HIS CHARGE ( PAGE 7 OF PAPER BOOK ) . O N PERUSAL OF PAGE 9 REVEALS THAT UNDER THE PR. CLT/CLT , KOLKATA-12 THE ADD! . CIT/JR . CIT. RANGE-34, KOLKATA HAS BEEN PLACED UNDER HIM (P AGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK).THUS FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FACTS REVEAL THAT THE ASSE SSEE BEING A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AN D HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN AREA COVERED BY PIN NO . 700001 , THE PR. CLT/CLT, KOLKATA:2 ENJOYED JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE NOTIFICATION OF CBDT DATED 22.10.2014 [AS WELL AS NOTIFICATION NO. 228/2001 DATED 3J . 07.2007J AND, THEREFORE, ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA WHO FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF PR. CLT/CLT, KOLKATA-2 ONLY HAD THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THUS W, RECORD A FIND IN OF FACT AND 6 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 6 LAW THAT THE ITO WARD-6 1 KOLKATA WAS THE OFFICER AUTHO RITY WHO WAS VESTED WITH THE 'URISDICTION OF ASSESSEE I. E. AA OF THE ASSESSEE COM AN . WE NOTE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO) DATED 13 . 03.2015 WAS PASSED BY THE JURI S DICTIONAL ITO, WD-6(1) , KOLKATA. HOWEVER, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS THAT BEFORE SCRUTINIZING THE AS SESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT NEEDS TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA WAS SINE QUA NON AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN HOTEL BLUEMOON 321 ITR 362 (SC) WAS IN FACT NOT ISSUED BY HIM [ ITO , WD-6 ( 1), KOLKATA ] BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3)1144 THE ACT . SO THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT WHICH NEEDS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY US IS WHETHER ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKAT A ISSUED NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE FRAMING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. WE NOTE THAT THE ITO, W D- 6(1),KOLKATA HAS PASSED A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT ALLEGING NON- PARTICIPATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE NOTE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY ITO , WD-6 ( 1 ) KOLKATA, HE HAS MENTIONED ABOUT NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED NOT BY HI M BUT B Y ITO , WD-34(2), KOLKATA AND HAS MENTIONED CLEARLY THAT HE [ITO , WD-6(1 ), KOLKATA] H AS ISS UED ONLY NOTICE U/S . 142 ( 1 ) OF THE ACT . WE NOTE FROM A PERU S AL OF THE IMPUGNED ASS E SS MENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO , WD-6(1) , KOLKATA THERE IS NO WHISPER/MENTION ABOUT ANY NOT IC E I SS UED BY HIM U/S . 14 ~ F THE ACT OR E V EN NOTICE ISSUED BEFORE F RA MIN G BE S T JUDGMENT U / S. 144 OF THE ACT . AS PER THE ITO, WD-6(1) , KOLKATA, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ITO, WD-34(2), KOLKATA AND NOT BY HIMSELF BEFORE FRAMING THE SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)/144 OF THE ACT . IT IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA THA T ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2)IS SINE QUA NON BEFORE DECIDING TO PROCEED TO SC R UTINIZE THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT . SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAI L ED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT IT O , WD-6(1), K O L KA T A WHO WAS THE J UR IS D ICTIO N AL AO DID NOT ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT B EFORE DE CI D ING TO SCRUTI N IZE AND FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S143(3)/144 OF THE ACT, THE LEGAL CHA L LENGE M ADE B Y T HE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3, ( WHICH READS AS UNDER ) NEEDS TO S U CCEE D : ' ADDITIONAL GROUND-I: FOR THAT NO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF TH E IT ACT 1961 WAS S E RVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED . ADDITIONAL GROUND-2 : FOR THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT 1961 WA S B EY OND JURI S DICTION AND BAD IN LAW AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASS E D DESERVES TO BE QUASH E D. ADDITIONAL GROUND-3 : FOR THAT THE TRANSFER OF CASE WITHOUT ORDER U/S 127 OF THE IT A C T 1961 WAS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE THE A S SESSMENT ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ' . 6. WE FI ND THAT NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISS U E D B Y I TO , W D -6(1), K OLKATA B EFORE 7 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 7 COMPL E TING TH E ASSESSMENT . WE NOTE THAT I TO , WD-34(2), KOL KATA DI D NOT ENJOY T H E JURISDICTI ON O VER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY VI R T U E OF BO TH TH E E AR L IER NO TIFICATION NO. 228/2001 DATED 31 . 07.2001( CBDT ) AS WE LL AS T H E LA T EST NOTIFICATION NO. 5012014 DATED 22.10.2014 OF CBDT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. T H EREFORE, TH E ASSESSMENT COMPLE T ED BY ITO, WD- 6(1), KO L KATA ON THE STRENGTH OF THE NOTICE ISS U ED U/S. 143(2) OF T HE ACT BY I T O, WD-34 ( 2 ), KOLKATA (WHO DID NOT ENJOY JURISDICTION) IS NON-EST IN LAW AND, THEREFORE, IS BAD IN LAW AND TRANSFER OF THE JURISDICTION AS CONT EMPLATED U/S. 127 OF THE ACT TO ITO, WD-6(L), KOLKATA. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN KUSUM GOYAL (2010) 329 ITR 283 (CAL) HAS CLEARLY SPELT OUT THAT THE ITO ON ITS OWN CANNOT TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION WITHOUT ORDER FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY. IN THIS CASE, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ANY TRANSF ER ORDER PASSED BY THE CONCERNED CIT-12, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ITO, WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA THAT THE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ITO,WD-34(2) TO ITO, WD-6 (L), KOLKATA IS ALSO WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND VITIATES THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION AS CLAIMED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THUS THIS FACTUAL SO VITIATES THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER . IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING WAS RENDERED TO IT BY ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA BEFORE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S.144OF THE ACT WHICH OMISSION ON THE PART OF AO ALSO IS AGAINST PRINCIPLE SO FACT UAL JUSTICE AND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT IS FRAGILE FOR NON-AD HERENCE OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE PART OF AO. THEREFORE, LOOKING FROM ANY ANGL E AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND ESPECIALLY TAKING NOTE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED BY THE ITO, WD-6 ( L ) . KOLKATA WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS CO RUM NON-JUDICE AND THEREFORE N ULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, NEED TO BE QUASHED AND WE QUASH THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.03.2015 PASSED BY ITO, WD -6(L), KOLKATA. THE ADDITION AL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . 6. WE ADOPT THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO CONCLUDE THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22-03-2015 HAD BEE N FRAMED WITHOUT THE COMPETENT ASSESSING OFFICERS SEC. 143(2) NOTICE ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS DECLARED INVALID FOR THIS PRECISE REASON. THE ASSESSEE SUCCE EDS IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION NO. 34/KOL/2019 . THE REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO. 2179/KOL/16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS DISMISSED AS THE NECESSARY COROLLARY. ALL OTHER REVENUES AND ASSESSEES PLEADINGS IN ABO VE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC. 8 ITA NO.2179/KOL/2016 AY 2012-13 CO NO. 34/KOL/2019 AY 2012-13 ANAMIKADEALCOMP.LTD. 8 7. THIS REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO. 2179/KOL/2016 IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.34/KOL/2019 IS ALLOWED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22-10-2020 SD/- SD/- [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ] [ S.S.GODARA ] ( ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED : -10-2020 **PRADIP, SR. PS/DKP SR.P.S. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-M/S ANAMIKA DEALCOM PVT. LTD., AD-76,SAL T LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-64 2. /REVENUE-ITO-WD-10(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN,3 RD FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 3. # / CONCERNED CIT 4. # - / CIT (A) 5. $ , ( /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. , / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , ( ,