Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Hoshiarpur V. The Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur

ITA 561/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8821 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.561 (ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAN : ABRPS-3527J PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA, PROP. KANAHAYA INDUSTRIES, 55/12 KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSHIARPUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III, HOSHIARPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. J. S. BHASIN( LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN(LD. D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 25/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/01/2017 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FEELING AG GRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), JALANDHA R U/S. 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ILLEGALLY COLLECTED BY ITO UNA, DURING SO CALLED SURVEY CONDU CTED BY HIM AT ASSESSEES PREMISES, WHEN HE NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE NEITHER IN PAST NOR IN FUTURE. (II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ASSESS EES ARGUMENT IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE THAT THE DISPUTE RAISED WAS NOT ON THE JURISDICTION OF ITO HOSHIARPUR, BUT OF THE ITO UNA, WHOM THE JURISDICTI ON WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, TO CONDUCT SURVE Y AT ASSESSEES PREMISES. (III) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUTCOME OF ABOVE LEGAL GR OUNDS, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.24,02513/- MADE BY THE LD. ITO U/S 69, TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY BUILDING, BY RELYING UPON UNPROVED ENTRIES MADE IN DIARIES IMPOUNDED IN SURVEY. ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 2 (IV) THAT LIKEWISE, THE LD.CIT(A), WHILE GRANTING SUBSTA NTIAL RELIEF OUT OF ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCY IN VA LUATION OF STOCKS HELD/FOUND DURING SURVEY, ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,75,114/- DE HORS THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. (V) THAT THE ITO HAVING ACCEPTED THE TRADING RESULTS, A S ALSO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE UNWARRANTED AND I LLEGAL AND HENCE, UN- SUSTAINABLE. (VI) THAT ALTERNATIVELY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER F OUND NOR HELD TO HAVE ENGAGED IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT FOR RUNN ING THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT SET UP AT UNA, THE IMPUGNED INCOME PURPORTEDLY INVE STED IN BUILDING AND STOCKS, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80 IC. (VII) THAT THE ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.22194/-, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MISMATCH WITH FORM NO. 26, HAS BEEN WRONGLY SUSTAIN ED BY THE LD.CIT(A). (VIII) THAT THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE INCORRE CT IN FACTS AND ON LAW, TO THE EXTENT DISPUTED HEREINABOVE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 26.09.2010 DECLARING THEREIN AN INCOME OF RS.2,45,750/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I C OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,94,269/-. IT HAS BEEN GATHERE D FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UNA AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.12.2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OP ERATION, SOME DISCREPANCIES IN STOCK AND CASH WERE NOTICED BY THE SU RVEY TEAM. THE STOCK LYING AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS PHYSICALLY VERIFIED AND INVENTORY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO P REPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM. AS PER TRADING ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THERE WAS A STOCK VALUING RS.2,04,32,011 /- AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEREAS ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION, THE STOCK WAS FOUND TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,68,92,255/-. IT MEANS, ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION EXCESS STOCK WORTH RS.64,60,244/- WAS FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. SIMILARLY, THE CASH AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NOTICED BY THE SURVEY TEAM AT RS.9,21,776/- WHEREAS NO CASH WAS FOUND ON PHYSI CAL ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 3 VERIFICATION. IN ADDITION TO THIS, SOME DIARIES/NOTE BOOKS WERE ALSO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN WHICH EXPENSES RELAT ING TO CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY CUM OFFICE BUILDING OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOTICED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE DISCREPANCIES NOTICED IN STOCK AND CASH TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF EXPENSES ON CONSTRUCTION AS NOTED IN THE DIARIES IMPOUNDED DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAIL ED REPLY IN RESPECT OF EACH ISSUE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PARTLY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DISCREPANC Y IN STOCK BUT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO DISCREPANCY IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO SOURCE S OF EXPENSES ON CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTED IN THE DIA RIES. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, COMPLETE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.52,56,525/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE:- (I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN CASH RS.9,21,776/- (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AS NOTED IN DIARIES RS.24,02,513/- (III) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN STOCK RS. 16,64,294/- (IV) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES NOTICED IN INTEREST INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS APPEARING IN 26AS STATEMENT RS.22,194/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY DETERMINED ADDITIONS OF RS. 9, 21,776/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN CASH, RS.24,02,513/ - ON ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 4 ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ON CONSTRUCTION OF B UILDING AS NOTED IN DIARIES, RS.16,64,294/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPA NCY IN STOCK AND RS.22,194/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES NOTICED IN INT EREST INCOME. 4. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE FIRST APPEAL BE FORE THE LD. CIT, WHO PARTLY ALLOWED DELETION OF RS. 9,21,776 ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN CASH AND FURTHER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,64,244 ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN STOCK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,75 ,114 WHILE AFFIRMING THE REST OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL ON THE GROUNDSMENT IONED IN PARA NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO THE ALREADY RAISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ALSO RAISED TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY FILING AN APPLICATION DATED 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: (I)THAT IN THE LIGHT OF CIT(A)S TWIN FINDINGS IN PA RA5.1 OF HIS ORDER, THAT (I) THE ITO HOSHIARPUR-3 HAD VALID JURISDICTION IN ASSESSEES CASE AT THE TIME OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT AND ALSO THAT (II) THE DISPUTE REGARDING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE HAD BEEN FINALLY SETTLED BY T HE CIT, SHIMLA (VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTERER NO. 3742 DT. 11.12.2012), THEN THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(3 ) ON 20.09.2011 BY ITO-3 HOSHIARPUR, WAS WITHOUT ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 5 JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM WAS INVALID. (II)THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S FURTHER FINDING IN PARA 5. 1 THAT THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN COMPLETING ASSESSMENT, BASED ON DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED BY ITO UNA DURING SURVEY AS PER HIS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, ALSO REAFFIRMS THA T AS ON 20.09.2011, WHEN THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY ITO, HOSHIARPUR, THE JURISDICTION WAS VESTED WITH ITO UN A, TILL IT WAS TRANSFERRED BY CIT SHIMLA ON 11.11.2011. 7. IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS , IT WAS ARGUE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE LEGAL G ROUNDS AND ARISE OUT THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH, AND IN THE LIGHT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT DECISION IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT(1998) 229 IT R 383 IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED BY THE LD. ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED TO RAISE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME B EFORE THE BENCH AND IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS COU LD NOT BE RAISED EARLIER IN AS MUCH, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED FOCUSED ON LY ON THE POINT THAT ITO UNA WAS HAVING NO JURISDICTION OF THE A SSESSEES CASE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT VALIDLY IMPOUND ANY DOCUMENTS FROM HIS PREMISES U/S. 133A AND THEREFORE, SUCH ILLEGAL SEIZURE O F DOCUMENTS COULD NOT COME TO THE AID OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. NOW WHILE PREPARING THE APPEAL, WHEN THE ORDER OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW SPECIALLY OF THE LD. CIT(A), HAVE BEEN REVISITED CAREFULLY, IT TRANSPIRES THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO, HOSHIARPUR , U/S. 1 43(2) WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO MAKE THE ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 6 INSTANT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE IN NOT RAISING THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN REGULAR MEMOS. THE LD. AR ALSO ARGUED AT LENGTH ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE HOWEVER WE FEEL APPROPRIATE TO DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUES FIRST THEREFORE, RESTRAINING OURSELVES FROM TOUCHING THE MERITS OF THE CASE . 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR EMPHASIZED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT FIRST TIME ONLY AT THE FAG END OF HIS APPEAL, ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW BECAU SE THE CONTROVERSY WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION HAD BEEN SET TLED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA AND THEREAFTER ONLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE GIVING AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE LD. ALSO REPLIED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS OF THE CASE, HOWEVER FIRST WE ARE DECIDING THE LEGAL ISSU E THEREFORE ARE NOT CONSIDERING AT THIS STAGE. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND ALSO RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, IT IS TRUE THA T THE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED THESE GROUNDS QUA JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OF FICER, HOSHIARPUR, EITHER AT THE INITIAL PROCEEDINGS OR AT APP ELLATE STAGE, HOWEVER BECAUSE THESE ARE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE CASE THEREFORE WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN ADDITION TO ALREADY RAISED GROUNDS OF APPEA L. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE LEGAL ISSUES THEREFORE IT WOULD BE P ROPER TO DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUES FIRST WITHOUT TOUCHING THE MERI TS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 7 WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO MENTION SEQUENCES OF DATE AN D EVENTS QUA JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DATE EVENT 14.12.2009 SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ITO UNA, AT ASSESSEES PREMISES 26.09.2010 E-FILING OF RETURN BY ASSESSEE 15.09.2011 143(2) NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO UNA 20.09.2011 143(2) NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO HOSHIARPUR 14.12.2012 ITO UNA INFORMS ITO HOSHIARPUR THAT ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS PENDING WITH HIS OFFICE AND MATTER OF JURISDICTION WAS PENDING WITH CIT, SHIMLA. 20.12.2012 ITO UNA INFORMS ITO HOSHIARPUR THAT JURISDIC TION OF THIS CASE TRANSFERRED TO ITO HOSHIARPUR BY CIT, SHIMLA VIDE ORDER NO. 3742 DT. 11.12.2012 28.03.2013 ITO HOSHIARPUR PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME THROUGH E-FILIN G ON 26.09.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 245750/- AFTER CL AIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1, AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,94,269/-.THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) O N 24.05.2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y UNDER CASS PROGRAM OF CBDT. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE UNDER 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.09.2011 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE 21.09.2011. THERE AFTER NOTICES U/S 143(2) /142(1) ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED ON 10.11 .2011 WHICH WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2011. AS CHANG E OF INCUMBENT NOTICES U/S 143 (2)/142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 21.11 .2012. THE ITO UNA, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.12.2012 INFORMED T HAT ASSESSMENT ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 8 PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING WITH HIS OFFICE BEING A SURVEY CASE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE LIES WITH ITO WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR AS HE IS RESIDING AT HOSHIARPUR. HE FURTHER INFORMED THAT THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PENDING WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA. ON 20.12.2012 IT WAS INTIMATED BY THE ITO UNA THROUGH FAX THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN DECIDED AND CIT, SHIMLA HAS GIVEN HIS APPROVAL TO TRANSFER THIS CASE FROM ITO UNA TO ITO WARD-3, HOSHIA RPUR VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER NO. 3742 DATED 11.12.2012. IN RESPONSE T O THE STATUTORY NOTICES SH. P.K. KHANNA C.A. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION/INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE SEQUENCES THAT VIDE DATED. 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO UNA, AND VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 NOTICE U/S. 143 WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE ITO HOSHIARPUR, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURN AND VIDE ORDER DATED 11 TH DECEMBER, 2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT, SHIMLA VIDE ORDER NO. 3742, THE JURISDICT ION OF THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FINALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ITO HOSH IARPUR AND IN PURSUANCE TO THAT , ITO HOSHIARPUR ON DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2013 PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT, AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS BENCH. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BOTH THE ITOS ISSUED PROPE R STATUTORY NOTICES U/S. 143(2) WITHIN TIME AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME I.T. ACT, HOWEVER DUE TO CONTROVERSY OF THE JURI SDICTIONS AS THE DIFFERENT ITOS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE IN COME TAX ACT QUA SAME SUBJECT MATTER, THEREFORE, THE CONTROVERSY WAS CROPPE D UP WHICH ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 9 WAS FINALLY SETTLED BY THE LD. CIT, SHIMLA ON DATED 1 1 TH DECEMBER, 2012. FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, SHIMLA, I T IS CLEAR THAT THE ITO HOSHIARPUR WAS HAVING JURISDICTION TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER, HOWEVER THERE WAS CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSING OF FICERS OF SINGLE SUBJECTIVE MATTER IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AFTER CLARIFICATION OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE LD. CIT SHIMLA, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HOSHIARPUR WAS SUPPOSED TO INITIATE FRESH PROCEEDINGS WHILE ISSUING FR ESH STATUTORY NOTICE , ON VESTING/CLARIFICATION OF THE JURI SDICTION. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION AND WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE THAT IT WAS A PROCEDURAL CONFUSION/LAPSES AND IT IS A CLEAR FACT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION AT HOSHI ARPUR AND IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE REAFFIRMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (UNO) THAT ASSESSMENT JURISDICTION VEST ONLY WITH HOSHIARPUR BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS FINA NCIAL YEAR AT HOSHIARPUR ONLY BECAUSE HE RESIDE THERE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOSHIARPUR NEVER ISSUED ANY STATUTORY NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESSEE CONTENTION IS THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUING THE STATUTORY NOTICE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR H AD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE THEREFORE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR IS BASED ON THE NOTICE DATED 20-09- 2011 ISSUED U/S 143(2) BAD IN LAW AND NOT SUSTAINABLE AN D IN CONSEQUENTLY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT ALSO LIABLE TO B E QUASHED. ITA NO.561/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010- 11 10 WE ARE NOT SATISFIED BY THE GROUNDS AND CONTENTIONS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN TOTO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO F ILED HIS REPLY AND NEVER CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF HOSHIARP UR, HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THERE W AS CONFUSION QUA JURISDICTION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE MIND OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF DEPARTMENT THEREFORE IT WOULD BE P ROPER AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO AFFORD REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PARTIES OF BEING HEARD AND TO DEFEND THEIR CASE S PROPERLY , HENCE WE REMAND THE CASE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER T O FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DE-NOVO AFTER GIVING PROPER AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PARTIES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.01. 2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 .01.2017. /GP/ SR.PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER