Shivam Dhatu Udyog Ltd., Kolkata V. D.C.I.T.,Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2456/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3435 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP CHOUBE
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 292BB; 143(2); 124(5); 13; 153C; 148; 132; 12; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 1 | P A GE , C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 2456/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. (PAN: AAICS8785R) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 24.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.03.2021 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SANDEEP CHOUBE, CIT, DR ORDER PER SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA DATED 14.10.2019 FOR AY 2012-13. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI MIR AJ D. SHAH DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A S UNDER: 1. FOR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUING THE NOTI CE U/S.143(2) OF THE I. T ACT, 1961 DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, OF THE ASSESSEE HE NCE, THE NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. 2. FOR THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER .WAS PASSED WITHOU T SERVICE OF ANY VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED IS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE IT ACT 1961 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW AN D THUS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE QUASHED AND OR CANCELLED. 3. ON A PERUSAL OF THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND IT IS DI SCERNED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING A LEGAL ISSUE IN RESPECT OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO (D CIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA) (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) TO HAVE PASSED THE SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO DID NOT ISSUE THE ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 2 | P A GE MANDATORY STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT B EFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 17.03.2015. 4. WE NOTE THAT THIS IS PURELY A LEGAL ISSUE, WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US, WHICH ACTION OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OPPOSED BY THE LD. DR FOR ADMISSION ITSELF, SINCE ACCORDING TO LD DR, IT WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND NO OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE S AME. FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE AO TO HAVE FRAMED THE A SSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR D REW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, A PERUSAL OF WHICH WE NOTE THAT SECTION 143(2 ) NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY ITO, GORAKHPUR. FOR READY REFERENCE THE SAME IS SEEN AS UNDER: 5. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID NOTICE U/S. 143( 2) OF THE ACT, IT IS DISCERNED THAT THE SAME WAS ISSUED ON 08.08.2013 BY DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GO RAKHPUR (STATE OF U. P.). AND THE ASSESSEE DULY OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE D CIT, CIRCLE-2, GORAKHPUR STATING THAT THE ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 3 | P A GE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOLKA TA I.E. IN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL. REALIZING THE MISTAKE, DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GORAKHPUR TR ANSFERRED THE CASE TO THE AO, KOLKATA WHO ADMITTEDLY HAVE NOT ISSUED THE MANDATORY STATUT ORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT; AND HAS ISSUED ONLY NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT AND H AS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR IS WITHOUT J URISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. FOR THAT HE CITED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS I.E. M/S RUNGTA IRRI GATION LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 RELEVANT PORTI ON OF IT IS RE-PRODUCED AS UNDER: 13. FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REG ARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, IT IS PERTINENT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124, 127 AND 129 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 120. JURISDICTION OF INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES (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 A NY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) MAY AUTHORISE ANY OTHER INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCI SE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHER INCOME- TAX AU THORITIES 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 HA VE REGARD TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, 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- SECTIO NS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, R ESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN,- (A) AUTHORISE ANY DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO PERF ORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE BOAR D; (B) EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF 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 O F ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECT IONS (1) AND (2) MAY, WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK, REQUIRE TWO OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER OR NOT OF THE SAME CLASS) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT O F ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES; AND, WHERE SUCH POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE EXERCISED AND PERFORMED CONCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 4 | P A GE CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM S HALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THE REUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AN D ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NO T APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTIO N OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124, THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN T HE OFFICIAL GAZETTE,, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR TH E DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CL ASS 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. 124. JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED U NDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEENVESTE D 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 SITUATE WI THIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, I F THE PRINCIPAL 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 QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS TO W HETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHA LL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER; OR WHER E THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTORS GENE RAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF CO MMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY N OTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION TH E JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER- (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A N OTICE UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE C OMPLETION 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 (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SECTION 14 8 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SH OW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 13 2 OR SECTION 132A, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A N OTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OR AFTER TH E COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.) ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 5 | P A GE (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (3), WHE RE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN- ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETE RMINATION 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 HA VE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VES TED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120.] 127. POWER TO TRANSFER CASES (1) THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MA Y, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER , WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, TRANSFER ANY CA SE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURR ENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITH OUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) ALSO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICE RS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS TO WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE SAME DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, (A) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSION ERS OR COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM SUCH ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE SUBORDINATE ARE IN AGREEMENT , THEN THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER FROM WHOSE JURISDICTIO N THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, PASS THE ORDER; (B) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSION ERS OR COMMISSIONERS AFORESAID ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE MAY, SIMILARLY, BE PASSED BY THE BOARD OR ANY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMM ISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AUTHORISE IN THIS BEHALF. (3) NOTHING IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) S HALL BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) T O ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISD ICTION) AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE. (4) THE TRANSFER OF A CASE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) MAY BE MADE AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND SHALL NOT RENDER NECESSARY THE RE-ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS FROM WH OM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. EXPLANATION: IN SECTION 120 AND THIS SECTION, THE WORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDIN G ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DAT E, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DAT E OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. 129. CHANGE OF INCUMBENT OF AN OFFICE WHENEVER IN RESPECT OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS AC T AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY CEASES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND IS SUCCEEDED BY ANOTHER W HO HAS AND EXERCISES JURISDICTION, THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY SO SUCCEEDING MAY CONTINUE TH E PROCEEDING FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THE PROCEEDING WAS LEFT BY HIS PREDECESSOR: ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 6 | P A GE PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY DEMAND THA T BEFORE THE PROCEEDING IS SO CONTINUED THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF BE REOP ENED OR THAT BEFORE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS PASSED AGAINST HIM, HE BE REHEARD. 14. A BARE READING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS REVE AL THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTION U/S. 120(1) IS GIVEN BY THE BOARD, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, AS SPECIFIED U/S . 116 OF THE ACT. AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT, THE BOARD MAY DELEGATE ITS POWERS TO INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 116, FOR ISSUING THE ORDERS IN WRITING, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE O THER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO THAT AUTHORITY. WE ALSO NOTE THAT TH E CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE VESTED IN MORE THAN ONE AO, WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE BY A CONJOIN T READING OF SECTION 120(5) WITH SECTION 120(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT CONFER S JURISDICTION ON AN AO, BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTION VESTED BY ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUE D BY CBDT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND / OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE AO IS VESTED WI TH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT, OVER ANY AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL H AVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY PERSON (ASSESSEE) CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND IF THE PLA CE AT WHICH HE (ASSESSEE) CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA EAR-MARKED FOR HIM (AO); OR IF THAT PERSONS (ASSESSEES) BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON I N MORE PLACES THAN ONE, THEN IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATED WIT HIN THE JURISDICTIONAL TERRITORIAL AREA, THE AO GETS JURISDICTION. OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEES WHO AR E NOT IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IN THEIR CASES, THE AO WILL BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION IF THE PERSON (ASSESSEE) IS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AREA EAR-MARKED BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECT IONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT SPEAKS ABOUT. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON THEN IT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS STIPULATED IN SUB-SEC TION (2) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT BY DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISS IONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED, AS THE CASE MAY BE). IN CASE, IF THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISD ICTION OF DIFFERENT INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES(DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER S OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS AS STIPULATED THEREIN) THEN IF THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY ALSO AGREES THEN THE QUESTION WILL BE RESOLVED MUTUALLY OR ELSE IT WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CBDT. SO, ONCE THE AO OF AN ASSESS EE IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) & (2) OF THE ACT AND ISSUES S TATUTORY NOTICES AGAINST AN ASSESSEE, NO PERSON (ASSESSEE) SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUES TION THE JURISDICTION OF AN AO WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C) OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SEC. 124(5) SAVES THE ACTION OF THE AO WHO HAS TERR ITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM T HE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION VESTED IN HIM BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED U/S. 120( 1) OR (2) OF THE ACT. SO, THIS SAVING PROVISION WHICH SAVES THE ACTION OF AN AO IS LIMITED TO THE I NCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HIS TERRITORIAL AREA AS CONFER RED TO HIM (AO) BY ORDER UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. SO, T HIS SAVING PROVISION WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY IN THE FIRST PLACE THE AO IS VESTED WITH THE JURISD ICTION BY AN ORDER/DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB- SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT. THUS, AS PE R THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SECTIONS 120 AND 124 VEST JURISDICTION ON INCOME TA X AUTHORITIES AND ON AO RESPECTIVELY AND, THEREFORE, BOTH SECTIONS I.E. SECTIONS 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION AND HARMONIOUSLY TO DECIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHICH IS PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTION OR ORDERS BY THE CBDT UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC . 120 OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. A.R SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) O F THE IT ACT 1961 DATED 08/08/2013 WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2, GORAKHPUR, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH WAS BAD IN LAW AS THE ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 7 | P A GE DCIT CIRCLE 2 GORAKHPUR DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION B Y VIRTUE OF SECTION 124/120 OF THE ACT OVER THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS BASED IN KOLKATA AND IS SITUATED AT STATE OF WEST BENGAL. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY DCIT, GOROKHPUR WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENT ACTIONS WERE BAD IN LAW . FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED BY DCIT, GORAKHPUR TO DCIT, KOLKATA AND THE CONSEQUENT FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE PASSED BY THE DCIT, C IRCLE- 3(1), KOLKATA WAS WITHOUT ISSUE OF ANY VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT 1961 S O BAD IN LAW. 7. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. A.R THA T THE TRANSFER OF CASE FROM GORAKHPUR TO KOLKATA WAS NOT MADE BY PASSING ANY ORDER U/S 12 7 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT BY DCIT (KOLKATA) IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD IN KUSUM GOYAL VS. ITO (329 ITR 283). 8. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R THE LAW IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I SSUES NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, SUCH NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID AND ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTION INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW AN D VOID AB INITIO. 9. IN THIS REGARDS HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S HILLMAN HO SIERY MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO. 26341KO112019, ORDER DATED 12.01.2021, UNDER SI MILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 10. IN THIS CASE, THE ITO WARD-3(3), KOLKATA, ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 04/09/2014. IN REPLY, ON 22/09/2014, THE ASSESSEE W ROTE TO THE ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA, STATING THAT HE HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESS EE. THEREAFTER ON 31/07/2015, THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2016. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY DCIT , CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, IS VALID AS ADMITTEDLY, HE DID NOT ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE RES-INTEGRA. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SOMA ROY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 462/KOL/2019; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, ORDER DT. 8 TH JANUARY, 2020, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HELD AS UNDER:- 5. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I ADMIT THIS A DDITIONAL GROUND AS IT IS A LEGAL GROUND, RAISING A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER BOARD INSTRU CTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DT. 31/01/2011, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, AS THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-CORPOR ATE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME RETURNED IS ABOVE RS.15,00,000/- AND WHEREAS, THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 29/09/2016, BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR, WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ACIT, C IRCLE-1(1), DURGAPUR, WHO HAD THE JURISDICTION ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 8 | P A GE OVER THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE HAD NOT ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THUS, HE SUBMITS T HAT THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 5.1. ON MERITS, HE REBUTTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON CERTAIN CASE-LAW, WHICH I WOULD BE REFERRING TO AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. 6. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT T HE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION VESTS WITH THE ITO AS WELL AS THE ACIT AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT CA NNOT BE ANNULLED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ACIT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJE CT TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN OTHERWISE, SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, COMES INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ANNULLED. ON MERITS, HE RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSI DERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, I HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 8. I FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DT. 29/09/2016 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ITO, WD-1(1), DUR GAPUR. LATER, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ACIT ON 11/08/2017. THEREAFTER, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OF THIS C ASE AND WHO HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 26/12/2017 I.E., ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DURGAPUR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. 9. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI S UKUMAR CH. SAHOO VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 2073/KOL/2016 ORDER DT. 27.09.2017, HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 5. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE CBDT ON ITOS IS IN RESPECT TO THE 'NON CORPORATE RETURNS' FILED WHERE INCOME DECLARED IS ONLY UPTO RS.15 LACS ; AND THE ITO DOES N'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT ASSESSMENT IF IT IS ABOVE RS 15 LAKHS. ABOVE RS. 15 LACS INCOME D ECLARED BY A NON- CORPORATE PERSON I.E. LIKE ASSESSEE, THE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION LIES BEFORE AC /DC. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL (NON CORPORATE PERSON) WHO UNDISPUTEDLY DECLARED INCOME OF RS.50,28,040/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED BY THE ITO AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA). FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT REVEALS THAT THE STATUTORY NOT ICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE THEN ITO, WARD-1, HALDIA ON 06.09.2013 AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19.09.2013 AS NOTED BY THE AO. THE AO NOTED THAT SINCE THE RETURNED INC OME IS MORE THAN RS. 15 LACS THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ITO, WARD-1, HALDIA TO ACIT, C IRCLE-27 AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE-27, HALDIA ON 24.09.2014 AND IM MEDIATELY ACIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ON THE SAME DAY. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS THE F OLLOWING FACTS EMERGED: I) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G RS.50,28,040/-. THE ITO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 06.09.2013. II) THE ITO, WARD-1, HALDIA TAKING NOTE THAT THE IN COME RETURNED WAS ABOVE RS. 15 LACS TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO ACIT, CIRCLE-27, HALDIA ON 24.09.2014. III) ON 24.09.2014 STATUTORY NOTICES FOR SCRUTINY W ERE ISSUED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-27, HALDIA. 6. WE NOTE THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION IS DATED 31.01 .2011 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.03.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5 0,28,040/-. AS PER THE CBDT INSTRUCTION THE MONETARY LIMITS IN RESPECT TO AN ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHICH FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF 'NON CORPORATE RETURNS' THE ITO'S INCREASED MONETARY LIM IT WAS UPTO RS.15 LACS; AND IF THE RETURNED INCOME IS ABOVE RS. 15 LACS IT WAS THE AC/DC. SO, S INCE THE RETURNED INCOME BY ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS ABOVE RS.15 LAKH, THEN THE JURISDICTION TO ASSES S THE ASSESSEE LIES ONLY BY AC/DC AND NOT ITO. SO, THEREFORE, ONLY THE AC/DC HAD THE JURISDICTION TO A SSESS THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT SERVING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR AN ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. I N THIS CASE, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 06.09.2013 BY ITO, WARD-1, HALDIA WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE THE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION TO ASSUME JURIS DICTION AND ISSUE NOTICE. ADMITTEDLY, WHEN THE ITO REALIZED THAT HE DID NOT HAD THE PECUNIARY JURI SDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE HE DULY TRANSFERRED THE FILE TO THE ACIT, CIRCLE-27, HALDIA ON 24.09. 2014 WHEN THE ACIT ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICE WHICH WAS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUANCE OF NO TICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT THE ACIT BY ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION AFTER THE TIME PRESCRI BED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT NOTICE BECAME QOARUM NON JUDICE AFTER THE LIMITATIO N PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE WAS CROSSED BY HIM. ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 9 | P A GE THEREFORE, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BY THE ACIT, CIRC LE-27, HALDIA AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS SET IN, GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND MAKES THE NOTICE BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, IS NUL L AND VOID IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SINCE WE H AVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ON THE LEGAL ISSUE, THE OTHER G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO BE ADJUDICATED BECAUSE IT IS ONLY ACADEMIC. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. PER-CONTRA, THE LD. CIT, DR CONTENDED THAT THE AO (DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA) HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER I SSUING NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT AND HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT, SINCE THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2 , GOROKHPUR HAS ALREADY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, HE DOES NOT WANT US TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO (DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA). 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY AND ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT KOLKATA (STATE OF WEST BENGAL). FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR (AY 2012-13) A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-2 , GOROKHPUR (STATE OF U.P.). THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GOROKHPUR DID NOT ENJ OY THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION U/S 124 OR BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT OR BY TRANSFER AS PER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AO (DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA) W HO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3)OF THE ACT HAD THE JURISDICTION AND HE HAS NO T ISSUED FRESH NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT. NOW ONLY THE LEGAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THE AO (DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA) WOULD H AVE FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ISSUING AND SERVING NOTIC E U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE. THIS LEGAL ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES-INTEGRA. THE ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR FRAMING SCRUTINY NOTICE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (S.C) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ISSUE OF A LEGALLY VALI D NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR USURPING JURISDICTION TO FRAME SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T U/S 143(3) CANNOT BE FRAMED AND OMISSION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS N OT A CURABLE DEFECT. ITA NO. 2456/KOL/2019 SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 10 | P A GE 12. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT BY THE AO (D CIT CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA BEFORE HE FRAMED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE A CT DATED 17.03.2015, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE ASSESSEE S UCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. SINCE THE AO (DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA DID NOT IS SUE THE MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, HE DID NOT ENJOY THE JURISDICTION TO FRAM E THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO (DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), KOLKATA IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND IT HAS TO BE QUASHED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY . 13. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO GO IN TO THE MERITS OF T HE ACTION OF AO BECAUSE IT HAS BECOME ACADEMIC. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 10.03.2021 . SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10.03.2021 JD, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- M/S. SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD., FL.NO.1, 2 ND FLOOR, GOVIND MAHAL, 3, WOOD STREET, KOLKATA-700 016. 2. RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A)-6, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. CIT- KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA