Dipti Sahana , Hooghly V. A.C.I.T.,Circle-23(1), Hooghly

ITA 2203/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1244 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Competent authority
• Section: 148; 263; 132; 12; 144; 139; 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 205; 250; 143(2); 124(5); 158BC; 153C; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA................................................................APPELLANT C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE P.O. BUROSHIBTALA P.S. CHINSURAH DIST. HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL 712 105 [PAN : ALAPS 5590 C] VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY......................RESPONDENT ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA................................................................APPELLANT C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE P.O. BUROSHIBTALA P.S. CHINSURAH DIST. HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL 712 105 [PAN : AWHPS 6428 P] VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY......................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT SR. D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 19 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 29 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 18/07/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A COMMON ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. FOR THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATA ACTED UNLAWFULLY IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE PRESENT CASE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED IS ABSOLUTELY AB INITIO VOID, ULTRA VIRES AND NULL IN LAW. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AS IT IS A PURE LEGAL GROUND. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISPUTE THAT THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ADMIT THIS LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THIS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE POWER COMPANY LTD V CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL GROUND OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES IS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LI WITH THE ITO, WARD- 23(4), HOOGHLY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION. IN BOTH THE CASES, IN THE BELOW RS.15,00,000/- I.E., RS.10,07,510/ 13,51,310/- IN THE CASE OF SMT. DIPTI SAHANA. CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010 READS AS FOLLOWS:- REFERENCE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE BOARD FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS, ESPECIALLY FROM MOFUSSIL AREAS, THAT THE EXISTING MONETARY LIMITS FOR ASSIGNING CASES TO ITOS AND DCS/ACS IS CAUSING HARDSHIP O THE TAXPAYERS, AS IT RESULTS IN TRANSFER OF THEIR CASES TO A DC/AC WHO IS LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT STATION, WHICH INCREASES THEIR COST OF COMPLIANCE. THE BOARD HA D CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXISTING LIMITS NEED TO BE REVISED TO REMOVE THE ABOVEMENTIONED HARDSHIP. AN INCREASE IN THE MONETARY LIMITS IS ALSO CONSIDERED DESIRABLE IN VIEW OF THE INCREASE IN THE SCALE OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY SINC HAS THEREFORE BEEN DECIDED TO INCREASE THE MONETARY LIMITS AS UNDER: CORPORATE RETURNS NON-CORPORATE RETURNS METRO CHARGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE AHMEDABAD, BANAGALORE, CHENNAI, DELHI, KOLKATA, HYDERABAD, MUMBAI AND PUNE. 2 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH AND/OR FULFILLED BY THE LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED IS ABSOLUTELY AB INITIO VOID, ULTRA VIRES AND NULL IN LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND HENCE THE AS IT IS A PURE LEGAL GROUND. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISPUTE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ADMIT THIS LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY AS THIS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF POWER COMPANY LTD V CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL GROUND OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES IS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LI 23(4), HOOGHLY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION. IN BOTH THE CASES, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED , THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME IS I.E., RS.10,07,510/ -, IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANAT KUMAR SAHANA AND IN THE CASE OF SMT. DIPTI SAHANA. CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010 -IT(A- I)], DATED 31/01/2011, REFERENCE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE BOARD FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS, ESPECIALLY THAT THE EXISTING MONETARY LIMITS FOR ASSIGNING CASES TO ITOS AND DCS/ACS IS CAUSING HARDSHIP O THE TAXPAYERS, AS IT RESULTS IN TRANSFER OF THEIR CASES TO A DC/AC WHO IS LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT STATION, WHICH INCREASES THEIR COST OF COMPLIANCE. THE D CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXISTING LIMITS NEED TO BE REVISED TO REMOVE THE ABOVEMENTIONED HARDSHIP. AN INCREASE IN THE MONETARY LIMITS IS ALSO CONSIDERED DESIRABLE IN VIEW OF THE INCREASE IN THE SCALE OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY SINC E 2001, WHEN THE PRESENT INCOME LIMITS WERE INTRODUCED. IT HAS THEREFORE BEEN DECIDED TO INCREASE THE MONETARY LIMITS AS UNDER: INCOME DECLARED (MOFUSSIL AREAS) ITOS ACS/DCS UPTO RS. 20 LACS ABOVE RS. 20 LACS UPTO RS. 10 LACS ABOVE RS. 15 LACS METRO CHARGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE AHMEDABAD, BANAGALORE, CHENNAI, DELHI, KOLKATA, HYDERABAD, MUMBAI AND PUNE. ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA 1961 WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH AND/OR FULFILLED BY 23(1), HOOGHLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED IS ABSOLUTELY AB INITIO VOID, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND HENCE THE AS IT IS A PURE LEGAL GROUND. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISPUTE THE FACT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ADMIT THIS LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY AS THIS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD BY OF NATIONAL THERMAL WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL GROUND OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES IS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LI ES 23(4), HOOGHLY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED WITHIN HIS , THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME IS SHRI SANAT KUMAR SAHANA AND RS. I)], DATED 31/01/2011, REFERENCE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE BOARD FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS, ESPECIALLY THAT THE EXISTING MONETARY LIMITS FOR ASSIGNING CASES TO ITOS AND DCS/ACS IS CAUSING HARDSHIP O THE TAXPAYERS, AS IT RESULTS IN TRANSFER OF THEIR CASES TO A DC/AC WHO IS LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT STATION, WHICH INCREASES THEIR COST OF COMPLIANCE. THE D CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXISTING LIMITS NEED TO BE AN INCREASE IN THE MONETARY LIMITS IS ALSO CONSIDERED DESIRABLE IN VIEW OF THE INCREASE IN THE E 2001, WHEN THE PRESENT INCOME LIMITS WERE INTRODUCED. IT ACS/DCS ABOVE RS. 20 LACS ABOVE RS. 15 LACS METRO CHARGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE AHMEDABAD, BANAGALORE, THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS ARE ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIO APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 6.1. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CIRCULAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS WITH THE ITO, WARD- 23(4), HOOGHLY. THE ITO,WARD U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 29/07/2016 IN THE CASE OF SMT. DIPTI SAHANA AND 01/08/2016 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANAT SAHANA, AS THE JURISDICTION LIED WITH HIM. BUT THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION IN BOTH THE CASES WAS COMPLETED HOOGHLY. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ACIT, CIRCLE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION OR NOT. 7. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY ORDER CHANGE IN JURISDICT ION OF THE OFFICERS. DESPITE BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY, HE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 1149/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 22/01/2020, JURISDICTION, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 7. THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS GIVEN PAN CARD, HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, THIS YEAR AND FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA IT WAS FILED WITH THE SAME ADDRESS, BEFORE THE ITO, WARD THAT IT WAS ONLY THE ITO, WARD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESS THESE YEARS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7.1. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DT. 06/08/2013 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO WARD - THIS OFFICER. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES DEMONSTRATE THAT, AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 06/08/2013, THE ITO, WARD TO ITO, WARD-8(3), KO LKATA ON 03/02/2014. THEREAFTER, ITO, WARD NOTICE U/S 143(1) ON 10/10/2014 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30/03/2015. THE ITO WARD NOT ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE NON- ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE ASSESSMENT BAD IN LAW. 3 THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS ARE ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIO APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 -4-2011. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CIRCULAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS 23(4), HOOGHLY. THE ITO,WARD - 23(4), HOOGHLY, HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 29/07/2016 IN THE CASE OF SMT. DIPTI SAHANA AND 01/08/2016 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANAT SAHANA, AS THE JURISDICTION LIED WITH HIM. BUT THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION IN BOTH THE CASES WAS COMPLETED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE HOOGHLY. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HAS JURISDICTION TO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION OR NOT. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY ORDER OR CIRCULAR TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ION OF THE OFFICERS. DESPITE BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY, HE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACIT, CIRCLE -23(1), HOOGHLY, HAD JURISDICTION. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF K.A. WIRES LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1149/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 22/01/2020, WHI LE ADJUDICATING AND IDENTICAL ISSUE ON JURISDICTION, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS GIVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS GIVEN IN THE PAN CARD, HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, THIS YEAR AND FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013- 14, DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS FILED WITH THE SAME ADDRESS, BEFORE THE ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IT WAS ONLY THE ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO HAD AND CONTINUED TO HAVE THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESS EE COMPANY. THE PAN CARD ALSO HAS THE SAME ADDRESS FOR ALL THESE YEARS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DT. 06/08/2013 WAS - 33(1), KOLKATA. TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS OFFICER. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES DEMONSTRATE THAT, AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 06/08/2013, THE ITO, WARD - 33(1), KOLKATA, TRANSFERRED THE FILE LKATA ON 03/02/2014. THEREAFTER, ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(1) ON 10/10/2014 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30/03/2015. THE ITO WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO HAD THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, DID U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE ASSESSMENT BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS ARE ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIO NS AND SHALL BE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CIRCULAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS 23(4), HOOGHLY, HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 29/07/2016 IN THE CASE OF SMT. DIPTI SAHANA AND ON 01/08/2016 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANAT SAHANA, AS THE JURISDICTION LIED WITH HIM. BUT THE BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE -23(1), 23(1), HOOGHLY, HAS JURISDICTION TO PASSED OR CIRCULAR TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ION OF THE OFFICERS. DESPITE BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY, HE COULD NOT K.A. WIRES LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. LE ADJUDICATING AND IDENTICAL ISSUE ON WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS GIVEN IN THE PAN CARD, HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, THIS YEAR AND FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FIELD BY THE 14, DEMONSTRATE THAT 8(3), KOLKATA. THERE IS NO DISPUTE 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO HAD AND CONTINUED TO HAVE THE EE COMPANY. THE PAN CARD ALSO HAS THE SAME ADDRESS FOR ALL IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DT. 06/08/2013 WAS E ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS OFFICER. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES DEMONSTRATE THAT, AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE 33(1), KOLKATA, TRANSFERRED THE FILE 8(3), KOLKATA, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(1) ON 10/10/2014 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO HAD THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, DID U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 8.1. JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES IS CONFERRED BY THE BOARD (CE BOARD OF DIRECT TAX) U/S. 120(1) & (2) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. THE SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 120. (1) INCOME PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE' OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. EXPLANATION. TAX AUTHORITY, BEING AN AUTHORITY HIGHER IN RANK, MAY, IF SO DIRECTED BY THE BOARD, EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INCOME IN RANK AND ANY SUCH DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE DEEMED DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO IT. (3) IN ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB BOARD OR OTHER INCOME OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRIT (A) TERRITORIAL AREA; (B) PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS; (C) INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; AND (D) CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES. (4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDE LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, JOINT DIRECTOR, AND, WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, 4 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAR EFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES IS CONFERRED BY THE BOARD (CE BOARD OF DIRECT TAX) U/S. 120(1) & (2) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. THE SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 120. (1) INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE' OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. EXPLANATION. - FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, BEING AN AUTHORITY HIGHER IN RANK, MAY, IF SO DIRECTED BY THE BOARD, EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INCOME IN RANK AND ANY SUCH DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE DEEMED DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB -SECTION (1). (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) MAY AUTHORISE ANY OTHER TAX AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHER INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO IT. (3) IN ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD OR OTHER INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO ANYONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRIT ERIA, NAMELY:- (A) TERRITORIAL AREA; (B) PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS; (C) INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; AND (D) CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES. (4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDE R, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, - (A) AUTHORISE ANY 1 [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR 14 [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OR] DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE AS SIGNED TO HIM BY THE BOARD; (B) EMPOWER THE 1 [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR 14 [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECI OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, SHALL BE EXE RCISED OR PERFORMED BY COMMISSIONER OR AN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JOINT DIRECTOR, AND, WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER, AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS AC T REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY. ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA EFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES IS CONFERRED BY THE BOARD (CE NTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX) U/S. 120(1) & (2) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. THE SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE' OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS DECLARED THAT ANY INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY, BEING AN AUTHORITY HIGHER IN RANK, MAY, IF SO DIRECTED BY THE BOARD, EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INCOME -TAX AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AND ANY SUCH DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A SECTION (1) MAY AUTHORISE ANY OTHER TAX AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND THE OTHER INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO ANYONE SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD R, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OR] DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER SIGNED TO HIM BY THE BOARD; [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 14 [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECI FIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES RCISED OR PERFORMED BY AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR AN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JOINT DIRECTOR, AND, WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR IN ANY RULE MADE SESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER, AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS T REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK, REQUIRE TWO OR MORE A EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES; AND, WHERE SUCH POWER PERFORMED CONCURRENTLY BY THE AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FU REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN GAZETTE, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS, THE INCOME THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE SUCH AUTHORITY AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION. 8.2. FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT U/S 120(1) OF THE ACT, INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WILL HAVE TO EXERCISE ACTS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE BOARD. U/S 120(3) OF THE ACT, SUCH POWERS CAN BE CONFERRED BY THE BOARD HAVING REGARD TO THE TERRITORIAL AREA, CLASS OF PERSON, INCOME OR CLASS CBDT UNDER SEC. 120(5) OF THE ACT, CAN ALSO CONFER JURISDICTION ON TWO OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS (CONCURRENT JURISDICTION). THE CBDT CAN ALSO BY NOTIFICATION CONFER POWERS ON THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AS MAY BE NOTIF THAT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN CBDT CONFERS SUCH JURISDICTION U/S 120(4) AND 120(5) OF THE ACT. 8.3. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POWERS CONFERRED U/S. 120 (1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT, THE CBDT ISSUED NOTIFICATION ON NO. 191/2002(F.NO.187/9/2002 WHEREBY THE CBDT CONFERRED THE JURISDICTION BY SPECIFYING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SPECIFIC INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, ITS HEAD QUARTERS, TERRITORIAL AREA, PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS AND CAS ES OR CLASS OF CASES. 8.4. AS PER THE ABOVE REFERRED NOTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE'S BEING A COMPANY, THE CASE FELL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA NO. 205 OF THE NOTIFICATION. THE JURISDICTION OF THE AS BEING ITO WARD 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO WAS UNDER THE CHARGE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA III. 8.5. THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCOME TAX, AFTER THE JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED IN THEM BY VIRTUE OF NOTIFICATION U/S 1 AS PER SEC. 124 OF THE ACT. SECTION 124 OF THE ACT, READS AS UNDER: 124. (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSIN JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION 5 (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (2) MAY, WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK, REQUIRE TWO OR MORE A SSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER OR NOT OF THE SAME CLASS) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES; AND, WHERE SUCH POWER S AND FUNCTIONS ARE EXERCISED AND PERFORMED CONCURRENTLY BY THE AS SESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FU REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY NOT APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124 , THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS, THE INCOME -TAX AUTHORITY EXERCISING AND PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE SUCH AUTHORITY AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION. FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT U/S 120(1) OF THE ACT, INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WILL HAVE TO EXERCISE ACTS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE BOARD. U/S 120(3) OF THE ACT, SUCH POWERS CAN BE CONFERRED BY THE BOARD HAVING REGARD TO THE TERRITORIAL AREA, CLASS OF PERSON, INCOME OR CLASS CBDT UNDER SEC. 120(5) OF THE ACT, CAN ALSO CONFER JURISDICTION ON TWO OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS (CONCURRENT JURISDICTION). THE CBDT CAN ALSO BY NOTIFICATION CONFER POWERS ON THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AS MAY BE NOTIF IED IN THE NOTIFICATION. THIS SHOWS THAT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN CBDT CONFERS SUCH JURISDICTION U/S 120(4) AND 120(5) OF THE ACT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POWERS CONFERRED U/S. 120 (1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT, THE NOTIFICATION ON NO. 191/2002(F.NO.187/9/2002 -ITA- 1 DATED 30.7.2002) WHEREBY THE CBDT CONFERRED THE JURISDICTION BY SPECIFYING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SPECIFIC INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, ITS HEAD QUARTERS, TERRITORIAL AREA, PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS ES OR CLASS OF CASES. AS PER THE ABOVE REFERRED NOTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE'S BEING A COMPANY, THE CASE FELL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - III, KOLKATA VIDE SERIAL NO. 205 OF THE NOTIFICATION. THE JURISDICTION OF THE AS SESSEE FELL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ITO WARD 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO WAS UNDER THE CHARGE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCOME TAX, AFTER THE JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED IN THEM BY VIRTUE OF NOTIFICATION U/S 1 20(1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT, HAVE TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS AS PER SEC. 124 OF THE ACT. SECTION 124 OF THE ACT, READS AS UNDER: (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION - (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITU THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA SECTIONS (1) AND (2) MAY, WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE SSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER OR NOT OF THE SAME CLASS) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR S AND FUNCTIONS ARE EXERCISED AND SESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FU RTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER , THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY AUTHORITY EXERCISING AND PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT U/S 120(1) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WILL HAVE TO EXERCISE ACTS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE BOARD. U/S 120(3) OF THE ACT, SUCH POWERS CAN BE CONFERRED BY THE BOARD HAVING REGARD TO THE TERRITORIAL AREA, CLASS OF PERSON, INCOME OR CLASS OF THE CASES. THE CBDT UNDER SEC. 120(5) OF THE ACT, CAN ALSO CONFER JURISDICTION ON TWO OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS (CONCURRENT JURISDICTION). THE CBDT CAN ALSO BY NOTIFICATION CONFER POWERS ON THE IED IN THE NOTIFICATION. THIS SHOWS THAT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN CBDT CONFERS SUCH JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POWERS CONFERRED U/S. 120 (1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT, THE 1 DATED 30.7.2002) WHEREBY THE CBDT CONFERRED THE JURISDICTION BY SPECIFYING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SPECIFIC INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, ITS HEAD QUARTERS, TERRITORIAL AREA, PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS AS PER THE ABOVE REFERRED NOTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE'S BEING A COMPANY, THE CASE III, KOLKATA VIDE SERIAL SESSEE FELL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ITO WARD 8(3), KOLKATA, WHO WAS UNDER THE CHARGE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCOME TAX, AFTER THE JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED IN THEM 20(1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT, HAVE TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OR G OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITU ATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES (2) WHERE A Q HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTORS GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSION GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR] COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION TH OFFICER- (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB SUB- SECTION (1) OF WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WE OR SUB COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB UNDER SUB THE RETURN OR FIRST PROVISO TO COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDG EARLIER. (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS E (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINAT UNDER SUB (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN AS ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OR SUB 8.6. TH E CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS USED IN SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER, NOTIFICATION OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED U/S. 120(1) OR U/S. 120(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ONLY THE OFFIC HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S 120(1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT CAN ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER AND ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT, SINCE HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION ARE THE WORDS AS HAS BEEN USED IN SEC. 124(1) OF THE ACT. 6 THAN ONE, IF THE PRINCI PAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, AND (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. (2) WHERE A Q UESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS TO WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTORS GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTORS GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR] COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION TH E JURISDIC (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115WD SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 , AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WE OR SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WD OR SUB- SECTION (1) OF UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115WH OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 115WF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDG MENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OR SECTION 132A EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS E ARLIER. (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3), WHERE AN ASSES QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINAT UNDER SUB -SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 , EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN AS SESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OR SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120.. E CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS USED IN SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER, NOTIFICATION OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED U/S. 120(1) OR U/S. 120(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ONLY THE OFFIC HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S 120(1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT CAN ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER AND ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT, SINCE HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION ARE THE WORDS AS HAS BEEN USED IN SEC. 124(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA PAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. UESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS TO WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTORS GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR PRINCIPAL ERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTORS GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR] COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. E JURISDIC TION OF AN ASSESSING SECTION 115WD OR UNDER , AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON F SECTION 142 OR SUB- SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF SECTION 115WF OR UNDER THE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE MENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS SECTION 132A , AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OR AFTER THE SECTION (3), WHERE AN ASSES SEE CALLS IN ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINAT ION (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR , EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS SESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB - E CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS USED IN SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER, NOTIFICATION OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED U/S. 120(1) OR U/S. 120(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ONLY THE OFFIC ER WHO HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S 120(1) AND 120(2) OF THE ACT CAN ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER AND ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT, SINCE HE SHALL HAVE 8.7. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/ S. 124(1) OF THE ACT, BY THE BOARD, YET THE ASSESSEE MAY DISPUTE SUCH JURISDICTION VESTED U/S 124(1) OF THE ACT, IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUCH DISPUTE CAN BE RAISED U/S. 12 ACT, WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THIS SUB SECTION, THEREFORE, CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN DISPUTE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE EVEN THOUGH SUCH JURISDICTION WAS VESTE ORDER ISSUED U/ S. 120(1) OR 120(2) OF THE ACT, FOR SOME REASONS. 8.8. IN THIS CASE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER VESTED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 33(1) , (NON CORPORATE ASSESSEE WARD) WHO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED RETURN BEFORE ITO, WARD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOARDS NOTIFICATION, WHICH FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE COP Y OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), HOWEVER, WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE BY ITO, WARD 33(1), KOL WHO HAS NOT BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY CBDT. 8.9. UNDER THE SCHEME IT HAS TO ALSO FILL ITS ADDRESS AND SOME OF THE DETAILS ARE PICKED DEPARTMENT'S SYSTEM FAILS TO CORRECTLY TRANSFER THE RETURN TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OF FICER AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO A ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION AS PER THE CBDT'S NOTIFICATION, SUCH MISTAKE CANNOT CONFER THE JURISDICTION ON SUCH AN ASSESSING OFFICER. JURISDICTION CAN BE CONFERRED ONLY BY NOTIFICATION U/ S 120(1) AND 1 ONLY. 8.10. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER ORDER OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, FROM ITO WARD 33(1) TO ITO WARD 8(3). THERE CAN BE A VALID TRANSFER ORDER FROM ITO WARD 33(1) ONLY IF HE WAS VESTED ASSESSEE. AS HE WAS NEVER VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION EITHER BY THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CBDT OR BY ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EARLIER TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, HE COULD NOT HAVE VALIDLY KOLKATA. THE FILE/CASE WAS RESTORED TO ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA. WHEN THE SAID ITO WARD 33(1) WAS NOT HAVING VALID JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW. THE 8(3) IN FACT ESTABLISHES THAT THE REVENUE REALISED THAT THE ITO WARD 33(1) HAD NO JURISDICTION. 8.11. THE LD DR ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT U/S 120(4) AND 124(5) OF THE ACT, THERE CAN BE CONCURRENT JU RISDICTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THAT. HOWEVER THERE IS NO DIRECTION OR ORDER OR NOTIFICATION U/ S 120(1) OR 120(2) OF THE ACT, CONFERRING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO THE ITO WARD 33(1) ALONG WITH ITO WARD 8(3) U/ S 120(1) OR U/ S 120(2) OF THE ACT, WHI CH IS THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN SECTION 120(4) AND 120(5) OF THE ACT. 8.12. THE LD DR FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS SUBMISSION ALSO READ OUT PARA 19 OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF RUNGATA IRRIGATION IN ITA NO 1224/K/2019 DATED 6.9.2019. THE SAID DECISION S IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(DR) HAS RELIED ON PARA 19 WHICH IS IN FACT IN FAVOUR THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FULLY ANALYZED THE ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124 AND 127 OF THE ACT, IN PARA 13, 14,15,17, 18, 21 OF THE ORDER WITH REGAR ISSUE OF VESTING OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER ETC AND HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY NON JURISDICTIONAL AO WAS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 8.13. THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE JURISDICTION U/ S 124(3) OF THE ACT AND HENCE BY NOT DISPUTING THE SAME, THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION IS LOST FOREVER. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SO, HAD THE ITO, WARD 7 EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/ S. 124(1) OF THE ACT, BY THE BOARD, YET THE ASSESSEE MAY DISPUTE SUCH JURISDICTION VESTED U/S 124(1) OF THE ACT, IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUCH DISPUTE CAN BE RAISED U/S. 12 ACT, WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THIS SUB SECTION, THEREFORE, CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN DISPUTE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE EVEN THOUGH SUCH JURISDICTION WAS VESTE D IN HIM BY THE DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED U/ S. 120(1) OR 120(2) OF THE ACT, FOR SOME REASONS. IN THIS CASE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER VESTED WITH THE ASSESSING (NON CORPORATE ASSESSEE WARD) WHO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED RETURN BEFORE ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOIKATA WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOARDS NOTIFICATION, WHICH FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE Y OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), HOWEVER, WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE BY ITO, WARD 33(1), KOL WHO HAS NOT BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY CBDT. UNDER THE SCHEME OF E FILING OF RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILL PAN ON THE RETURN. IT HAS TO ALSO FILL ITS ADDRESS AND SOME OF THE DETAILS ARE PICKED - UP BY THE ASSESSE. IF THE DEPARTMENT'S SYSTEM FAILS TO CORRECTLY TRANSFER THE RETURN TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING FICER AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO A ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION AS PER THE CBDT'S NOTIFICATION, SUCH MISTAKE CANNOT CONFER THE JURISDICTION ON SUCH AN ASSESSING OFFICER. JURISDICTION CAN BE CONFERRED ONLY BY NOTIFICATION U/ S 120(1) AND 1 THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER ORDER OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, FROM ITO WARD 33(1) TO ITO WARD 8(3). THERE CAN BE A VALID TRANSFER ORDER FROM ITO WARD 33(1) ONLY IF HE WAS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. AS HE WAS NEVER VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION EITHER BY THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CBDT OR BY ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EARLIER TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, HE COULD NOT HAVE VALIDLY TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO ITO, WARD KOLKATA. THE FILE/CASE WAS RESTORED TO ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA. WHEN THE SAID ITO WARD 33(1) WAS NOT HAVING VALID JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW. THE TRANSFER OF THE FOLDER FROM ITO WARD 33(1) TO ITO WARD 8(3) IN FACT ESTABLISHES THAT THE REVENUE REALISED THAT THE ITO WARD 33(1) HAD NO THE LD DR ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT U/S 120(4) AND 124(5) OF THE ACT, THERE CAN BE RISDICTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THAT. HOWEVER THERE IS NO DIRECTION OR ORDER OR NOTIFICATION U/ S 120(1) OR 120(2) OF THE ACT, CONFERRING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO THE ITO WARD 33(1) ALONG WITH ITO WARD 8(3) U/ S 120(1) OR U/ S 120(2) OF THE ACT, CH IS THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN SECTION 120(4) AND 120(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD DR FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS SUBMISSION ALSO READ OUT PARA 19 OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF RUNGATA IRRIGATION IN ITA NO 1224/K/2019 DATED 6.9.2019. THE SAID S IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(DR) HAS RELIED ON PARA 19 WHICH IS IN FACT IN FAVOUR THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FULLY ANALYZED THE ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124 AND 127 OF THE ACT, IN PARA 13, 14,15,17, 18, 21 OF THE ORDER WITH REGAR ISSUE OF VESTING OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER ETC AND HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY NON JURISDICTIONAL AO WAS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE JURISDICTION U/ S 124(3) OF AND HENCE BY NOT DISPUTING THE SAME, THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION IS LOST FOREVER. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SO, HAD THE ITO, WARD - 33(1), KOLKATA, HAD ORIGINAL ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/ S. 124(1) OF THE ACT, BY THE BOARD, YET THE ASSESSEE MAY DISPUTE SUCH JURISDICTION VESTED U/S 124(1) OF THE ACT, IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUCH DISPUTE CAN BE RAISED U/S. 12 4(3) OF THE ACT, WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THIS SUB SECTION, THEREFORE, CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN DISPUTE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING D IN HIM BY THE DIRECTION OR IN THIS CASE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER VESTED WITH THE ASSESSING (NON CORPORATE ASSESSEE WARD) WHO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE 8(3), KOIKATA WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOARDS NOTIFICATION, WHICH FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE Y OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), HOWEVER, WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE BY ITO, WARD 33(1), KOL WHO HAS NOT BEEN VESTED OF E FILING OF RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILL PAN ON THE RETURN. UP BY THE ASSESSE. IF THE DEPARTMENT'S SYSTEM FAILS TO CORRECTLY TRANSFER THE RETURN TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING FICER AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO A ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION AS PER THE CBDT'S NOTIFICATION, SUCH MISTAKE CANNOT CONFER THE JURISDICTION ON SUCH AN ASSESSING OFFICER. JURISDICTION CAN BE CONFERRED ONLY BY NOTIFICATION U/ S 120(1) AND 1 20(2) OF THE ACT THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER ORDER OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, FROM ITO WARD 33(1) TO ITO WARD 8(3). THERE CAN BE A VALID WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. AS HE WAS NEVER VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION EITHER BY THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CBDT OR BY ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EARLIER TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO ITO, WARD -8(3), KOLKATA. THE FILE/CASE WAS RESTORED TO ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA. WHEN THE SAID ITO WARD 33(1) WAS NOT HAVING VALID JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, TRANSFER OF THE FOLDER FROM ITO WARD 33(1) TO ITO WARD 8(3) IN FACT ESTABLISHES THAT THE REVENUE REALISED THAT THE ITO WARD 33(1) HAD NO THE LD DR ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT U/S 120(4) AND 124(5) OF THE ACT, THERE CAN BE RISDICTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THAT. HOWEVER THERE IS NO DIRECTION OR ORDER OR NOTIFICATION U/ S 120(1) OR 120(2) OF THE ACT, CONFERRING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO THE ITO WARD 33(1) ALONG WITH ITO WARD 8(3) U/ S 120(1) OR U/ S 120(2) OF THE ACT, CH IS THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN SECTION 120(4) AND 120(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD DR FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS SUBMISSION ALSO READ OUT PARA 19 OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF RUNGATA IRRIGATION IN ITA NO 1224/K/2019 DATED 6.9.2019. THE SAID S IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(DR) HAS RELIED ON PARA 19 WHICH IS IN FACT IN FAVOUR THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FULLY ANALYZED THE ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124 AND 127 OF THE ACT, IN PARA 13, 14,15,17, 18, 21 OF THE ORDER WITH REGAR D TO THE ISSUE OF VESTING OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER ETC AND HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY NON - THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE JURISDICTION U/ S 124(3) OF AND HENCE BY NOT DISPUTING THE SAME, THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION IS LOST 33(1), KOLKATA, HAD ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. WHEN AN AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE JUR ISDICTION, THEN THE ACT DONE BY SUCH AUTHORITY IS BAD IN LAW AND IS VOID AB 8.14. THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (I) RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD. REFERRED TO ABOVE WITH RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS AND PARAGRAPH 36. (II) SMRITI KEDI A CALCUTTA HIGH COURT 339 ITR PAGE 37 (III) INDORAMA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. MUMBAI BENCH ITA NO. 5211 AND 5290(MUM) OF 2011 DATED 7.9.2012 8.15. IN THE CASE OF MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI & CO (ITA NO. 1851/1852/KOLJ2002, ITAT, D-BENCH, KOL DATED 28.7.2006 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.7.2002 AND HELD THAT AFTER ISSUE OF THE NOTIFICATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS EARLIER VESTED THE JURISDICTION LOST THE JURISDICTION AND EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY HIM AT THE TIME WHEN HE WAS HAVING JURISDICTION, YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION ON 30.7.2002 CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL AFTER THE SAID DATE. IN THAT CASE EVEN THE AUTHORIZATION WAS ALSO GRANTED FOR FILING THE AP XIII, KOLKATA WHO LOST THE JURISDICTION AFTER THE NOTIFICATION. IN THAT CASE AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE AFORESAID GROUND OF JURISDICTION, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CO DISMISSED. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER CAME UP WITH CONDONATION PETITION AND A FILED FRESH APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BUT THE SAME WAS ALSO DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 1768 AND 1769/KOL/2006, B- BENCH ON 15.9.2014. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH HIGH COURT WHICH WAS DISMISSED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 'THE APPEAL CARRIED BY THEACIT DISMISSED AS NOT COMPETENT. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS COURT. THIS COU THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER RESTED THERE WITHOUT THIS COURT'S ORDER BEING CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MATTER PERTAINS TO THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE ITO- 44 HAS PR BY THE ITO POINT OF TIME WHEN AC1T THE SAID CBOT NOTIFICATION 2002 SINCE THERE WAS A F APPEAL AS INCOMPETENT SINCE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO UNDERTAKE THE ASSESSMENT QUA THE ASSESSEE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE LEGAL OR RESURRECTED.' 8.16. WHIL E DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI & CO., (SUPRA) THE ITAT RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 278 ITR 218. IN THAT CASE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT J URISDICTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY DEFAULT OR BY AGREEMENT AND THE DECISION WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS A NULLITY. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO RELIED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGEMENTS WHILE ARRIVING AT SUCH A CONCLUSION. 8.17. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE IN ITA NO. 79 OF 2015 DATED 1.3.2017 HAS ALSO TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW WHEREIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 124(3) WERE ALSO REFERRED TO. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE 8 JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. WHEN AN AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE ISDICTION, THEN THE ACT DONE BY SUCH AUTHORITY IS BAD IN LAW AND IS VOID AB THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (I) RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD. REFERRED TO ABOVE WITH RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS AND A CALCUTTA HIGH COURT 339 ITR PAGE 37 (III) INDORAMA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. MUMBAI BENCH ITA NO. 5211 AND 5290(MUM) OF 2011 DATED 7.9.2012 IN THE CASE OF MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI & CO (ITA NO. 1851/1852/KOLJ2002, DATED 28.7.2006 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.7.2002 AND HELD THAT AFTER ISSUE OF THE NOTIFICATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS EARLIER VESTED THE JURISDICTION LOST THE JURISDICTION AND EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RECEIVED BY HIM AT THE TIME WHEN HE WAS HAVING JURISDICTION, YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION ON 30.7.2002 CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL AFTER THE SAID DATE. IN THAT CASE EVEN THE AUTHORIZATION WAS ALSO GRANTED FOR FILING THE AP XIII, KOLKATA WHO LOST THE JURISDICTION AFTER THE NOTIFICATION. IN THAT CASE AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE AFORESAID GROUND OF JURISDICTION, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT BUT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER CAME UP WITH CONDONATION PETITION AND A FILED FRESH APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BUT THE SAME WAS ALSO DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 1768 AND BENCH ON 15.9.2014. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH HIGH COURT WHICH WAS DISMISSED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 'THE APPEAL CARRIED BY THEACIT - 39 TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED AS NOT COMPETENT. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS COURT. THIS COU RT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER RESTED THERE WITHOUT THIS COURT'S ORDER BEING CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MATTER PERTAINS TO THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE 44 HAS PR EFERRED AN APPEAL WHERE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT WAS NOT DONE BY THE ITO - 44 BUT SUCH ASSESSMENT 'WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ACIT POINT OF TIME WHEN AC1T - 39 LOST JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE SAID CBOT NOTIFICATION 2002 SINCE THERE WAS A F UNDAMENTAL ERROR, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS INCOMPETENT SINCE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO UNDERTAKE THE ASSESSMENT QUA THE ASSESSEE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE LEGAL OR RESURRECTED.' E DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI & CO., (SUPRA) THE ITAT RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 278 ITR 218. IN THAT CASE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT URISDICTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY DEFAULT OR BY AGREEMENT AND THE DECISION WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS A NULLITY. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO RELIED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGEMENTS WHILE ARRIVING AT SUCH A CONCLUSION. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.P. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD IN ITA NO. 79 OF 2015 DATED 1.3.2017 HAS ALSO TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW WHEREIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 124(3) WERE ALSO REFERRED TO. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. WHEN AN AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE ISDICTION, THEN THE ACT DONE BY SUCH AUTHORITY IS BAD IN LAW AND IS VOID AB -INITIO (I) RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD. REFERRED TO ABOVE WITH RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS AND (III) INDORAMA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. MUMBAI BENCH ITA NO. 5211 AND IN THE CASE OF MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI & CO (ITA NO. 1851/1852/KOLJ2002, DATED 28.7.2006 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.7.2002 AND HELD THAT AFTER ISSUE OF THE NOTIFICATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS EARLIER VESTED THE JURISDICTION LOST THE JURISDICTION AND EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RECEIVED BY HIM AT THE TIME WHEN HE WAS HAVING JURISDICTION, YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION ON 30.7.2002 CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL AFTER THE SAID DATE. IN THAT CASE EVEN THE AUTHORIZATION WAS ALSO GRANTED FOR FILING THE AP PEAL BY THE CIT- XIII, KOLKATA WHO LOST THE JURISDICTION AFTER THE NOTIFICATION. IN THAT CASE AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE AFORESAID GROUND OF URT BUT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER CAME UP WITH CONDONATION PETITION AND A FILED FRESH APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BUT THE SAME WAS ALSO DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 1768 AND BENCH ON 15.9.2014. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E HON'BLE 39 TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED AS NOT COMPETENT. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER RESTED THERE WITHOUT THIS COURT'S ORDER BEING CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MATTER PERTAINS TO THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE EFERRED AN APPEAL WHERE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT WAS NOT DONE 44 BUT SUCH ASSESSMENT 'WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ACIT -39 AT A 39 LOST JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO UNDAMENTAL ERROR, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS INCOMPETENT SINCE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO UNDERTAKE THE ASSESSMENT QUA THE ASSESSEE COULD NEVER E DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI & CO., (SUPRA) THE ITAT RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 278 ITR 218. IN THAT CASE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT URISDICTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY DEFAULT OR BY AGREEMENT AND THE DECISION WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS A NULLITY. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO RELIED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGEMENTS CASE OF V.P. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD IN ITA NO. 79 OF 2015 DATED 1.3.2017 HAS ALSO TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW WHEREIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 124(3) WERE ALSO REFERRED TO. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, I.E AN ASSESS NULLITY. 8.18. IN THE CASE OF DEEPCHAND KOTHARI REPORTED IN 171 ITR 381(RAJ) IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS THEN SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE AB- INTIO- VOID. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRAN SINGH VS CHAMAN PASWAN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN UP AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN AT THE TI ME OF EXECUTION OF DECREE. 8.19. THE ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF GANESH REALITY AND MALL IN ITA NO. 581/KOL/2017 HELD THAT IF NO JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE OR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY SUCH AUTHORITY IS ILL 8.20. IN THE CASE OF P.V. DOSHI VS CIT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN UP AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 8.21. IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES (386 ITR 162) THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX ISSUING NOTICE U/ S. 263 HAS LOST THE JURISDICTION THEN THE NOTICE AND ORDER ISSUED BY HIM IS A NULLITY. 8.22. THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 89 AND 90/LKW /2015 DATED 16.4.2015 IN THE CASE OF MD RIZWAN HELD THAT NOTICE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NULLITY. 8.23. SAME VIEW HAVE BEEN TAKEN A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES SOME OF WHICH ARE UNDER: 1. A.L. AHUJA V/S. DCIT SOT (2003) PAGE 475 AT PAGE 480 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SARKAR & CO. 1954 AIR 613 CALCUTTA. 3. RAM KRISHNA RAMNATH VS. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AIR 1932 PAGE 65 NAGPUR 4. CIT WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER VS. ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY AND ANO PAGE 367 5. COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF ORISSA 81 SALES TAX CASES PAGE 84 6. SAIN BABA MOHANSING 90 ITR PAGE 197 7. RAJEEVKUMAR DONERRIA V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 94 ITD PAGE 344 9 COMPETENT AUTHORITY, I.E AN ASSESS ING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION, THEN THE ASSESSMENT IS A IN THE CASE OF DEEPCHAND KOTHARI REPORTED IN 171 ITR 381(RAJ) IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS THEN SUCH INTIO- VOID. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRAN SINGH VS CHAMAN PASWAN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN UP AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN AT THE ME OF EXECUTION OF DECREE. THE ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF GANESH REALITY AND MALL IN ITA NO. 581/KOL/2017 HELD THAT IF NO JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE OR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY SUCH AUTHORITY IS ILL EGAL. IN THE CASE OF P.V. DOSHI VS CIT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN UP AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES (386 ITR 162) THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX ISSUING NOTICE U/ S. 263 HAS LOST THE JURISDICTION THEN THE NOTICE AND ORDER ISSUED BY HIM IS A NULLITY. THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 89 AND 90/LKW /2015 DATED 16.4.2015 IN THE CASE OF MD RIZWAN HELD THAT NOTICE U/ S 143(2) ISSUED BY NON ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NULLITY. SAME VIEW HAVE BEEN TAKEN A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES SOME OF WHICH ARE UNDER: 1. A.L. AHUJA V/S. DCIT SOT (2003) PAGE 475 AT PAGE 480 IF AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SARKAR & CO. 1954 AIR IF AT THE TIME OF FILING, OF THE APPEAL THE ITO HAD NO SEISIN OVER HE ASSESSEES CASE AND CASE IS TRANSFERRED BY THE FROM ITO WARD- III(2) TO SOME OTHER OFFICER, ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL, THE ITO WARD III(2) CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT RIGHTLY DISMISSED BY THE ITAT. 3. RAM KRISHNA RAMNATH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AIR 1932 PAGE 65 NAGPUR WHEN BY NOTIFICATION DATED 28 THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE ITO SHOULD BE EXERCISED BY THE ACIT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO WAS ILLEGAL 4. CIT WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER VS. ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY AND ANO THER REPORTED IN 66 ITR THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN SARKAR & CO. 1954 AIR 613 CALCUTTA WAS APPROVED AND HELD THAT IF THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BOARD THEN THE INCOME TAX OFFICER FROM WHOM THE FILE IS TRANSFER RED SHALL HAVE NO CONCERN WITH THE APPEAL. 5. COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF ORISSA 81 SALES TAX CASES PAGE 84 ANNULMENT OF ASSESSMENT IS PERMISSIBLE WHERE THE TAXING AUTHORITY HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ASSESSEE. 6. SAIN BABA MOHANSING 90 ITR PAGE 197 PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY AN AUTHORITY WHO LACKED JURISDICTION IS AB INITIO VOID. 7. RAJEEVKUMAR DONERRIA V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 94 ITD PAGE 344 ONLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO AT THE RELEVANT TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL HAS THE JURISDICTION CAN FILE THE APPEAL. AN APPEAL FILED BY AN OFFICER WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO FILE THE APPEAL IS NON ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA ING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION, THEN THE ASSESSMENT IS A IN THE CASE OF DEEPCHAND KOTHARI REPORTED IN 171 ITR 381(RAJ) IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS THEN SUCH INTIO- VOID. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRAN SINGH VS CHAMAN PASWAN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN UP AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN AT THE THE ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF GANESH REALITY AND MALL IN ITA NO. 581/KOL/2017 HELD THAT IF NO JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE OR IN THE CASE OF P.V. DOSHI VS CIT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES (386 ITR 162) THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX ISSUING NOTICE U/ S. 263 HAS LOST THE JURISDICTION THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 89 AND 90/LKW /2015 DATED 16.4.2015 U/ S 143(2) ISSUED BY NON -JURISDICTIONAL SAME VIEW HAVE BEEN TAKEN A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES SOME OF WHICH ARE UNDER: - IF AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BC THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL. IF AT THE TIME OF FILING, OF THE APPEAL THE ITO HAD NO SEISIN OVER HE ASSESSEES CASE AND CASE IS TRANSFERRED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III(2) TO SOME OTHER OFFICER, ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL, THE ITO WARD III(2) CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT RIGHTLY DISMISSED BY THE ITAT. WHEN BY NOTIFICATION DATED 28 TH MARCH, 1923 THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE ITO SHOULD BE EXERCISED BY THE ACIT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN SARKAR & CO. 1954 AIR 613 CALCUTTA WAS APPROVED AND HELD THAT IF THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BOARD THEN THE INCOME TAX OFFICER FROM WHOM THE FILE RED SHALL HAVE NO CONCERN WITH THE ANNULMENT OF ASSESSMENT IS PERMISSIBLE WHERE THE TAXING AUTHORITY HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY AN AUTHORITY WHO LACKED JURISDICTION IS AB INITIO VOID. ONLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO AT THE RELEVANT TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL HAS THE JURISDICTION CAN FILE THE APPEAL. AN APPEAL FILED BY AN OFFICER WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO FILE THE APPEAL IS NON 8.24. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE NO. 1254 OF 2014,JUDGEMENT DATED 9.3.2015 HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE WAIVER OF JURISDICTION, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 8.25. CONSENT CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION AND IF THE NOTICE IS IT IS INVALID AS WAS HELD IN RESHAM PETROTECH LTD. ITA O. 2777/ AHD/2011 DATED 10.2.2012 8.26. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.127 OF 2006 IN THE CASE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION SUBSEQUENTLY CANNOT VALIDATE THE ACTION ALREADY TAKEN. 8.27. THE LD. DR CITED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF I INTERACTIVE LIMITED (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8132 OF 2019 DATED NOT ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUING NOTICE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE THE SELECTION OF THE RETURN FOR SCRUTINY TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH PICKS UP THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAN DATABASE. THE NOTICE U/ S 143(2) WAS SENT AT THE ASSESSEE'S ADDRESS AVAILABLE AS PER THE PAN DATABASE. INTIMATION FOR FURTHER HEARING AVAILABLE IN THE PAN. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITY BUT CHALLENGED THE NOTICES SAYING THAT THESE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED UPON HIM AND THAT HE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS AND THE NEW ADDRESS WAS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT HE FILED FORM NO.18 WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. NO SEPARATE INTIMATION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE COURT HELD WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY INTIMATING THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND WITHOUT GETTING THE PAN DATABASE CHANGED, IS NOT ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT. THE COURT FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED A LETTER FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS BUT SUCH LETTER WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE ON THE PAN DATA BASE WAS PROPER AND VALID SERVI OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE COURT HELD THAT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE DATABASE OF PAN IS MUST, IN CASE OF CHANGE OF THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND/ OR ANY CHANGE IN THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT I.E., FORM 18 AND AFTER COMPLETING THE SAID REQUIREMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO APPROACH THE DEPARTMENT WITH THE COPY OF THE SAID DOCUMENT AND THEN THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE OF ADDRESS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL DATABASE OF THE PAN. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THIS JUDGMENT IS ON THE ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION A CASE OF NOTICE BEING ISSUED BY A NON IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFIC REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE PROPER ADDRESS. THE SAID JUDGEMENT THEREFORE DOES NOT HELP THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE OF JURISDICTION NOW BEFORE US. JURISDICTION HAS TO BE CONFERRED U/S 120 OF THE ACT. ANY ACT 10 EST. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOLLY FANTASY WORLD LTD., TAX APPEAL NO. 1254 OF 2014,JUDGEMENT DATED 9.3.2015 HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE WAIVER OF JURISDICTION, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. CONSENT CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION AND IF THE NOTICE IS SUED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IT IS INVALID AS WAS HELD IN RESHAM PETROTECH LTD. ITA O. 2777/ AHD/2011 DATED 10.2.2012 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.127 OF 2006 IN THE CASE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I, LALIT KUMAR BARDIA, JUDGEMENT DT. 11.7.2017, HELD THAT THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION SUBSEQUENTLY CANNOT VALIDATE THE ACTION ALREADY TAKEN. THE LD. DR CITED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF I INTERACTIVE LIMITED (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8132 OF 2019 DATED 18.10.2019). THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUING NOTICE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE THE SELECTION OF THE RETURN FOR SCRUTINY WAS GENERATED UNDER AUTOMATED SYSTEM OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH PICKS UP THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAN DATABASE. THE NOTICE U/ S 143(2) WAS SENT AT THE ASSESSEE'S ADDRESS AVAILABLE AS PER THE PAN DATABASE. INTIMATION FOR FURTHER HEARING AND THREE MORE NOTICES WERE SENT AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS AVAILABLE IN THE PAN. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITY BUT CHALLENGED THE NOTICES SAYING THAT THESE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED UPON HIM AND THAT HE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND THAT FURTHER SUBSEQUENT NOTICES SERVED AND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS AND THE NEW ADDRESS WAS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE FILED FORM NO.18 WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. NO SEPARATE INTIMATION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE COURT HELD THAT MERE MENTIONING OF THE NEW ADDRESS ON SUBSEQUENT RETURN WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY INTIMATING THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND WITHOUT GETTING THE PAN DATABASE CHANGED, IS NOT ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT. THE COURT FOUND SEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED A LETTER FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS BUT SUCH LETTER WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE ON THE PAN DATA BASE WAS PROPER AND VALID SERVI OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE COURT HELD THAT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE DATABASE OF PAN IS MUST, IN CASE OF CHANGE OF THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND/ OR ANY CHANGE IN THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT I.E., FORM 18 AND AFTER COMPLETING THE SAID REQUIREMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO APPROACH THE DEPARTMENT WITH THE COPY OF THE SAID DOCUMENT AND THEN THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL DATABASE OF THE PAN. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THIS JUDGMENT IS ON THE ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. AS ALREADY STATED, IT IS NOT A CASE OF NOTICE BEING ISSUED BY A NON -JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFIC ER IN ISSUING THE NOTICE BUT WAS WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE PROPER ADDRESS. THE SAID JUDGEMENT THEREFORE DOES NOT HELP THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE OF JURISDICTION NOW BEFORE US. JURISDICTION HAS TO BE CONFERRED U/S 120 OF THE ACT. ANY ACT BY AN AUTHORITY WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS AB ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA CASE OF JOLLY FANTASY WORLD LTD., TAX APPEAL NO. 1254 OF 2014,JUDGEMENT DATED 9.3.2015 HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE WAIVER OF SUED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IT IS INVALID AS WAS HELD IN RESHAM PETROTECH LTD. ITA O. 2777/ AHD/2011 DATED 10.2.2012 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.127 OF 2006 IN THE CASE OF THE DT. 11.7.2017, HELD THAT THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION SUBSEQUENTLY CANNOT VALIDATE THE ACTION ALREADY TAKEN. THE LD. DR CITED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF I -VEN 18.10.2019). THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUING NOTICE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE THE WAS GENERATED UNDER AUTOMATED SYSTEM OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH PICKS UP THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAN DATABASE. THE NOTICE U/ S 143(2) WAS SENT AT THE ASSESSEE'S ADDRESS AVAILABLE AS PER THE PAN DATABASE. AND THREE MORE NOTICES WERE SENT AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS AVAILABLE IN THE PAN. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITY BUT CHALLENGED THE NOTICES SAYING THAT THESE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED UPON HIM AND THAT HE OF THE ACT AND THAT FURTHER SUBSEQUENT NOTICES SERVED AND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS AND THE NEW ADDRESS WAS FILED FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE FILED FORM NO.18 WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. NO SEPARATE INTIMATION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CHANGE THAT MERE MENTIONING OF THE NEW ADDRESS ON SUBSEQUENT RETURN WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY INTIMATING THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND WITHOUT GETTING THE PAN DATABASE CHANGED, IS NOT ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT. THE COURT FOUND SEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED A LETTER FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS BUT SUCH LETTER WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE ON THE PAN DATA BASE WAS PROPER AND VALID SERVI CE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE COURT HELD THAT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE DATABASE OF PAN IS MUST, IN CASE OF CHANGE OF THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND/ OR ANY CHANGE IN THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS TO BE INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT I.E., FORM 18 AND AFTER COMPLETING THE SAID REQUIREMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO APPROACH THE DEPARTMENT WITH THE COPY AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL DATABASE OF THE PAN. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THIS JUDGMENT IS ON THE ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE AS TO OVER THE ASSESSEE. AS ALREADY STATED, IT IS NOT IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ER IN ISSUING THE NOTICE BUT WAS WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE PROPER ADDRESS. THE SAID JUDGEMENT THEREFORE DOES NOT HELP THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE OF JURISDICTION NOW BEFORE US. JURISDICTION HAS TO BE BY AN AUTHORITY WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS AB -INITIO VOID. 8.28. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE I.E., ITO WARD 143(2) OF THE ACT A S MANDATORILY REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: 321 ITR 362 (SC) . HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME. 9. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE A STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, WE WOULD NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. 10. IN THE RE SULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN BOTH THESE CASES BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 23(1), HOOGHLY, W SAME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE DATED : 29.05.2020 {SC SPS} 11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE I.E., ITO WARD 8(3), KOLKATA HAD NOT ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S S MANDATORILY REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: 321 ITR 362 (SC) . HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE A SSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW, IN VIEW OF THE NON STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, WE WOULD NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. SULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CASE, AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN BOTH THESE 23(1), HOOGHLY, W ERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 29 TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER 8(3), KOLKATA HAD NOT ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S S MANDATORILY REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: 321 ITR 362 (SC) . HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME. SSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW, IN VIEW OF THE NON -ISSUAL OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, WE WOULD NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN BOTH THESE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HENCE WE QUASH THE COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE P.O. BUROSHIBTALA P.S. CHINSURAH DIST. HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL 712 105 2. SANAT KUMAR SAHANA C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE P.O. BUROSHIBTALA P.S. CHINSURAH DIST. HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL 712 105 3. ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4. CIT(A)- 5. CIT- , 6 . CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 12 ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -23(1), HOOGHLY . CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ITA NO. 2203/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 DIPTI KUMAR SAHANA TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES