SHRI SHRI (DR.) HARI SINGH CHANDEL, CHAMPA (CG) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 287/BIL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0623 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Question of law; Competent authority; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायप ु र मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.287/RPR/2016 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Govt. Hospital, Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) PAN : ACXPC8440M .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ......Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, CAs Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2022 2 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur dated 18.03.2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 12.03.2014 for assessment year 2011-12. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal : “1. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in maintaining the addition of Rs.17,87,960/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 rejecting the explanations filed. Prayed that provisions of Sec.69 are not applicable and there is no unexplained investment, the addition of Rs.17,87,960/- be deleted.” Also the assessee has raised before us an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s.143(2) dt. 01-8-12 (within time) has been issued by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur who is not the jurisdiction AO and no valid notice u/s.143(2) within 6 months period has been issued by the jurisdictional A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dt.12-3-14 is invalid, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a government employee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 3 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 15.10.2011, declaring an income of Rs.,6,44,800/- a/w. agriculture income of Rs.72,400/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 3. Original assessment was thereafter framed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,45,44,960/- after making the following additions /disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Long term capital gain (LTCG) on compulsory acquisition of land Rs.1,20,75,183/- 2. Unexplained investment by way of deposits in bank Rs. 17,87,960/- 3. Amount received from M/s. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,000/- 4. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction of interest on house loan Rs. 34,021/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who except for sustaining an addition made by the A.O u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.17,87,960/- vacated all the remaining additions/disallowances, and thus, partly allowed the appeal. 4 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 5. The assesee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 7. We shall before proceeding any further deal with the maintainability of the additional ground of appeal that has been raised by the assessee-appellant before us. On a perusal of the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee, it transpires that he has sought our indulgence for adjudicating a legal issue, i.e., sustainability of the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.143(3) of the Act, de hors, issuance of a valid notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal has sought adjudication of a purely legal issue which would not require looking into facts any further beyond those available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our 5 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 aforesaid view that where an additional ground of appeal involving purely a question of law requiring no further verification of facts is raised before the Tribunal, though for the first time, then, the same merits admission is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 8. As the assessee has assailed before us the validity of the assessment framed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. 9. It is the claim of the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee, that the assessee-appellant who as in the preceding years had filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e AY 2011-12 with the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was however in receipt of a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur i.e. a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee thereafter was in receipt of notice(s) u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 142(1), dated 11.12.2013 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, Page 1 to 5 of APB. However, 6 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 the assessee subsequently received notice(s) u/s 143(2), dated 07.01.2014 and u/s. 142(1), dated 17.01.2014 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur (C.G) i.e. the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Page 9 to 11 of APB and Page 17 of APB. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessment was thereafter framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the notice u/s.143(2), dated 07.01.2014 was issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional officer for the very first time on 11.01.2013 i.e. beyond the stipulated time period of 6 months from end of the relevant assessment year 2011-12 which had lapsed way back on 30.09.2012, therefore, the assessment framed by him u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014 de hors issuance of a valid notice u/s.143(2) of the Act could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. 11. Adverting to the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012 that was issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the said notice was issued by a non- 7 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 jurisdictional Assessing Officer, therefore, the same was non-est and had no existence in the eyes of law. The Ld. A.R in order to buttress his claim that the territorial jurisdiction in the case of the assessee was vested with the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur had drawn our attention to the copy of the return of income that was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, wherein his address was mentioned as "Govt. B.D Mahant Hospital, Champa, Janjgir, Chattisgarh, Pin-497671”. Our attention was also drawn by the Ld. AR to the returns of income that were filed by the assessee for the preceding years i.e. AY 2007-08 to AY 2010-11 with the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the Assessing Officer i.e. the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur who was vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had failed to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) within the stipulated time period i.e. up to 30.09.2012, therefore, the assessment thereafter framed by him u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. The Ld. A.R on a specific query by the bench that as to whether the assessee as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act had called in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing 8 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 Officer within a period of one month from the date on which he was in receipt of notice(s) u/s.143(2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, answered in negative. Elaborating on the reasons for not calling in question the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the said officer did not fall within the meaning of “Assessing Officer” u/s. 2(7A) of the Act, therefore, the very basis for triggering the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 were not satisfied. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that the obligation cast upon the assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as per sub-section (3) to Section 124 of the Act would only come into play where the notice was received from either of the authority contemplated in Section 2(7A) of the Act, i.e, who was either vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of any directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act or any other provision of the Act; or any such authority who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as in the present case the 9 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 assessee was in receipt of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012 from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, who did not fall within the meaning of “Assessing Officer” as defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act, therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have questioned his jurisdiction on receipt of the same. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur by no means could be brought within the definition of “Assessing Officer” exercising concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee under sub- section (5) of Section 120 of the Act, therefore, issuance of notice by him u/s. 143(2) of the Act could not be justified and saved on the said count. 12. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that it was neither the case of the department nor a fact discernible from the record that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was vested with the “territorial jurisdiction” pursuant to any transfer of the assessee’s case from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur u/s.127 of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was 10 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 vehemently averred by the Ld. AR that now when the notice u/s. 143(2), dated 01.08.2012 was issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Jabalpur i.e. a non-jurisdictional A.O, while for no valid notice within the stipulated time period i.e. up to 30.09.2012 was issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional A.O, therefore, the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 12.03.2014 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. 13. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention that the issuance of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) was a sine-qua-non for framing of a valid assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325(SC). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessment in the case of the assessee had been framed in the absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the same in the absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. 14. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) on being confronted with the aforesaid contention of the ld. AR, i.e, as 11 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 regards the validity of the assessment that was framed on the basis of the notice u/s 143(2), dated 01.08.2012 that was issued by a non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur rebutted the challenge of the assessee’s counsel to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 12.03.2014. It was submitted by the ld. DR that though the case of the assessee on selection of his case for scrutiny assessment under CASS was on the basis of his PAN details allocated to the aforesaid officer, i.e., Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, but thereafter as the same was transferred by him to the jurisdictional Officer i.e. the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur who had proceeded with and well within the stipulated time period framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 12.03.2014, therefore, no infirmity as regards the validity of jurisdiction assumed or the assessment so framed emerged from the record. 15. Rebutting the aforesaid contention of the department, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the law did not recognize any jurisdiction on PAN data base for the reason that the same was in the nature of an 12 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 internal arrangement of the department which had no statutory recognition. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that now when as per sub- section (3) of Section 120 of the Act the various jurisdictions as recognized under the law had clearly been spelt out, viz. (i) territorial jurisdiction; (ii) persons or classes of persons jurisdiction; (iii) jurisdiction on the basis of income/classes of income i.e. pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iv) jurisdiction as per cases or classes of cases, and there was no reference of any PAN based jurisdiction, therefore, the claim of the Ld. DR that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of PAN details was an absolutely incorrect statement which had no legs to stand upon. 16. As the Ld. AR has assailed before us the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, on the ground that neither the said officer at any point of time was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee; nor was the case of the assessee ever transferred to him from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional officer u/s.127 of the 13 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 Act, therefore, for the sake of clarity and in order to dispel all doubts we directed the Ld. DR to produce the assessment records. 17. On the next date of hearing of the appeal Shri G.N Singh, Ld. Senior DR produced the assessment records before us. As per the jurisdictional history details available on the file of the department, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee from the period i.e. 27.09.2013 to 06.10.2020 had over the years changed as under: S. No. PAN Transfer From Transfer To Transfer order No. Transfer date 1. ACXPC8440M DC/ACIT2(1), Bilaspur Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 200000942049 06/10/2020 2. ACXPC8440M Ward JanjgirChampa DC/ACIT2(1), Bilaspur 200000665822 06/03/2019 3. ACXPC8440M ITO-2(2), Bilaspur Ward Janjgir Champa 104002950434 17/12/2014 4. ACXPC8440M Ward-1(2), Jabalpur ITO-2(2), Bilaspur 104002518880 27/09/2013 Interestingly, though it is stated that on 27.09.2013 the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was shifted from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur to Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, however, there is no whisper as to on what basis and as to when the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was seized with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee before us. On a perusal of the records it transpires that 14 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur vide a letter dated 31.12.2013 addressed to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, on realizing that the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was not vested with him but with the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, had therein transferred/delivered the case records to him a/w. a word of caution that the limitation for framing of the assessment in the case of the assessee u/s.143(3) was available up to 31.03.2014, (Page 28 of assessment folder-II). For the sake of clarity the aforesaid letter 15 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 dated 31.12.2013 (supra) is being reproduced as under: 16 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 17 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional A.O who was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had thereafter issued notice u/s. 143(2) only as on 07.01.2014 i.e. immediately on the next date on which the case records were delivered to him by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur. 18. Controversy involved in the present appeal boils down to the solitary issue, i.e., as to whether or not the assessment order passed u/s.143(3), dated 12.03.2014, in the absence of any notice u/s. 143(2) having been issued within the prescribed time period of six months from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e upto 30.09.2012 by an Assessing Officer vested with jurisdiction over the assessee’s case is sustainable in the eyes of law?. Corollary that flows from the aforesaid issue is as to whether or not the assessment framed by the A.O exercising jurisdiction over the case of the assesee i.e. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur vide order passed u/s.143(3), dated 12.03.2014 on the basis of a notice issued by him u/s 143(2), dated 07.01.2014 that was preceded by a notice u/s 143(2) issued within 18 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 the stipulated time period by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) can be sustained in the eyes of law.? 19. Answer to the aforesaid issues can safely be gathered on a bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, which obligates the Assessing Officer to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the A.O or to produce or cause to be produced before him any evidence on which he may rely in support of his return. As the aforesaid obligation is cast upon an “Assessing Officer”, who under Sec. 2(7A) of the Act takes within its sweep only those specified authorities who were either vested with relevant jurisdiction over the case of the assessee under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120 or any other provision of the Act; or any such authority who was directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Act, therefore, as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur could not by any means be held to be the “Assessing Officer” of the assessee as per Section 2(7A) of the Act, therefore, no assessment u/s.143(3) could have been validly framed on the basis of 19 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 the notice issued by him u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 01.08.2012. Our aforesaid view that where an assessment order is passed by an AO under section 143(3) only in pursuance to a notice issued under section 143(2) by an assessing officer who had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time, then, the impugned assessment order would be null and void is supported by a recent judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Nopany & Sons (2022) 286 Taxman 388(Cal). Facts before the Hon’ble High Court were that the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward-3 to ITO, Ward-4. Assessment order was thereafter passed by the ITO, Ward-4 only in pursuance of notice issued by ITO, Ward-3, who had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. On appeal, the Hon’ble High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal and held the impugned assessment order as null and void. 20. Apropos the contention of the department that now when the assessee as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 had not called in question the jurisdiction of the A.O within the stipulated time period of one month from the date of issuance of notice u/s.143(2), dated 01.08.2012 by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, 20 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 therefore, he could not have assailed the same for the very first time in the course of the present proceedings, in our considered view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.143(2), dated 01.08.2012 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was not a notice issued by an authority falling within the meaning of “Assessing Officer” i.e. either of the authorities contemplated in Section 2(7A) of the Act, viz. such authority who was vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of any directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act or any other provision of the Act; or any such authority who was directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Act; therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to call in question his jurisdiction on receipt of notice u/s. 143(2), dated 01.08.2012 from him. Our aforesaid conviction that where an assessee is in receipt of notice from an officer who was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee either u/s. 124(1) or u/s.127 or by notification or circular or instruction of CBDT, then, no obligation would be cast upon the assessee to call in question his jurisdiction as per the 21 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of V.P Electronics Corporation Ltd., ITA No.79 of 2015 dated 01.03.2017. In its aforesaid order the Hon’ble High Court after referring to the provisions of Sections. 124(3) of the Act, had held, that when the notice was not issued by the competent authority, i.e, an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction then the assessment so framed would be nullity. Also a similar view had been taken by the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, i.e, ITAT, Gauhati in the case of Balaji Enterprise Vs. ACIT (2021) 187 ITD 111 (Gau.) and the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of OSL Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2021) 211 TTJ (Kol) 621. We further find that a similar view had also been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh D Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 pertains to the dispute of the assessee with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the A.O and have no relevance in so far the inherent jurisdiction is concerned. 21. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), 22 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 Jabalpur was not having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, and thus, did not fall within the meaning of “Assessing Officer” as defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act, therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have called in question the assumption of jurisdiction by him to issue notice u/s 143(2), dated 01.08.2012 to the assessee. Also, as it is not the case of the department that the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur who had issued notice to the assessee u/s.143(2), dated 01.08.2012 was exercising concurrent jurisdiction over his case under sub-section (5) of Section 120 of the Act, therefore, as claimed by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, the invalidity/illegality of the notice issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur would also not be saved on the said count. 22. Also, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that as it is neither the case of the department nor a fact borne from record that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur had got vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee pursuant to any transfer of jurisdiction over his case from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur u/s.127 of the Act, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by him would also not be justified on the said count. Admittedly, no 23 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 order u/s.127 of the Act evidencing any transfer of the case of the assessee from the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional Officer to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur is available on the assessment record. On the contrary, as observed by us hereinabove, though the jurisdictional history of the assessee reveals that his case on 27.09.2013 was transferred from the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, but as to on what basis the jurisdiction over his case which since last many years had remained vested with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur (as evidenced on a perusal of the income tax returns of the preceding years) on the first occasion was transferred to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur remains an unresolved mystery till date. 23. On a specific query by the bench as to on what basis the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, the Ld. DR could not give any plausible answer. Only contention of the Ld. DR was that the case of the assessee was allocated to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur on the basis of PAN jurisdiction. However, as the statute does 24 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 not recognize any PAN jurisdiction for the reason that the specific jurisdictions as stands vested with an assessing officer, viz. (i) territorial jurisdiction; (ii) persons or classes of persons jurisdiction; (iii) jurisdiction on the basis of income/classes of income i.e. pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iv) jurisdiction as per cases or classes of cases, are clearly spelt out in sub-section (3) of Section 120 of the Act, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid claim of the department. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are unable to concur with the Ld. DR that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was validly vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of allocation of his case on PAN data base. Our aforesaid view that an invalid jurisdiction assumed by the A.O cannot be held to be correct by drawing support from PAN jurisdiction is supported by the order of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. NVS Builders (P.) Ltd. (2018) 169 ITD 679 (Delhi) (Trib.) and that of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Cosmat Traders P. Ltd. (2021) 128 taxmann.com 174(Kol). 24. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations concur with the contention advanced by the Ld. AR that as the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 12.03.2014 had been framed de hors any valid 25 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Accordingly, we quash the assessment framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Bilaspur vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 12.03.2014 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 25. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the A.O for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the other grounds that have been raised by the assessee before us as regards the sustainability of the addition on the merits of the case, which, thus, are left open. 26 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायप ु र/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 17 th October, 2022 **SB 26 Dr. Hari Singh Chandel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) ITA No. 287/RPR/2016 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur (C.G) 4. The CIT, Bilaspur (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र बɅच, रायप ु र / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र / ITAT, Raipur.