SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 61/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7138 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Ignorance of law; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 13; 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA L/H OF LATE SH. TARA CHAND AJMERA, 3659, BHOOT KE KUVE KI GALI MSB KA RASTA JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AATPA4923B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/11/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/01/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 21.11.2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.1 THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/148 DA TED 16.03.2016 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE TH E SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 BY THE ID. AO IS BAD I N LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VAR IOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2.1 RS.1,78,784/- : THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRE D IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,78,784/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, M ADE BY THE LD. ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 2 AO WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CONFRONTING TO THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMING BY THE ID. CIT(A) B EING ABSOLUTELY, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND, FACTS OF THE CASE AND NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW, HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.1 RS.50,98,416/- : THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.50,98,416/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSETS AS P ER SEC. 2(14). THE ID. AO ALSO ERRED IN NOT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF FULL INDEXATION. THUS THE ID. AO HAS WRONGLY TAKEN OR CHARGED THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.50,98,416/- AS AGAINST NIL AND THE ID. C IT(A) HAS ALSO WRONG FOR THE SAME. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY T HE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRA RY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. FURTHER THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 5. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A B & C. THE A PPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTERES T. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ITO WARD 1(4) RECEIVED CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM DY. DIT (INV.)-II, JAIPUR THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE MATHURADASPURA, RAMGARH ROAD, JAIPUR FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 53 LA CS AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, INCOME T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 53,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 26.03.2015 WAS THEREAFTER ISSUED TO SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS SINCE EXPIRED ON 10.01.2012. IN RESPONSE, T O THE NOTICE, THE LEGAL HEIR ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 3 FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASE D ASSESSEE ON 02.11.2015 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WHEREIN THE SHORT TERMS CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,78,784/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LA ND OF RS. 49,52,291/- WAS DETERMINED AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN HANDS OF LEGAL HEI R ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE LEGAL HEIR CARRIED T HE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDITIONS AND AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE LEGAL HEIR IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 3. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH 147 FOR WANT OF REQUISI TE JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR T HAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE LEGAL HEIR ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE BY ITO, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR AFTER SEEKING APPROVAL OF JCIT, RANGE-1, JAI PUR WHEREAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS WITH ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR UNDER JCIT RANGE-2, JAIPUR. THE LEGAL HEIR CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE CORRECT JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE ITO WARD 1(4) ON 03. 03.2016 WHERE HE SEEN A LETTER DATED 21.04.2015 WRITTEN BY THE ITO WARD 1(4 ) TO THE LD. PR. CIT -1 SEEKING THE TRANSFER OF CASE TO THE ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR HAVING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. AS HE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LEGAL HEIR CHECKED HIS OWN INDIVIDUAL PAN AATPA4912 G AND FOUND THAT HIS OWN INDIVIDUAL PAN IS ALSO LYING UNDER JURISDICTION OF ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR. THE LEGAL HEIR ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE THERE AFTER FILED AN OBJECTION THROUGH HIS LETTER DATED 11.03.2016 CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF ITO WARD 1(4) AND DESPITE SUCH OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE NOT DIS POSED OFF, THE ITO WARD 1(4) PROCEEDED AHEAD AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R U/S 143(3) R/W 147 DATED 16.03.2016. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT A REGULAR ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 4 INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND NOT HAVING THE KNOWLEDGE AB OUT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION. HENCE AS SOON AS HE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THE SAME, HE HAS FILED THE OBJECTION BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE ADV ANTAGE OF IGNORANCE OF LAW OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS ON THE WRONG FOOTING AND HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED TH AT BOTH THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED U/S 147 READ WITH 143(3) ARE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CHAL LENGE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY WITHIN 1 MONTH OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148/142(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED J URISDICTION ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY ON 11.03.2016 WHEREAS NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 WAS SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT ON 31.03.2015 THROUGH AFFIXTURE AND NOTIC E U/S 142(1) ON 22.09.2015 SERVED THROUGH SHO, MANAK CHOUK THANA, BADI CHOPER, JAIPUR. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AFTER A LONG GAP AND THAT TOO NEAR THE TIME BARRING DATE OF ASSESSMENT WHEN THE NOTICES U/ S 148/142(1) WERE SERVED UPON HIM MUCH EARLIER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE ITO WARD-1(4), JAIPUR DATED 23.03.2015 STATING THAT THE DECEASED A SSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND AT VILLAGE MATHURADASPURA, RAMGARH ROAD, JAIPUR AND RE CEIVED A SUM OF RS. 53,00,000/- AND SUCH LAND FALLING WITH THE PRESCRIB ED LIMIT OF MUNICIPALITY AREA ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 5 AND PROVISIONS OF CAPITAL GAINS ARE APPLICABLE ON S UCH SALE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ALS O NOT PAID TAX ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 53,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY P ERMISSION OF THE JCIT, RANGE-1, JAIPUR WAS SOUGHT AND WHICH WAS GRANTED ON 24.03.2015 AND THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 26.03.2015 IN NAME OF SHRI SUBHASH AJMERA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI TARACHAND AJMERA. 7. IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED BY THE ITO, WARD 1(4) , JAIPUR, THE NAME AND OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN STATED AS SH. T ARACHAND AJMERA, 3659, BHOOT KE KUYE KI GALI, M.S.B KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR , JAIPUR. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE REASON S BY ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, THE PAN AATPA4923B OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LYING WITH T HE ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD IN TERMS O F CURRENT AND PAST TAX FILINGS BY THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AS STATED BY ITO, WARD 1(4 ). THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 26.03.2015 WAS ISSUED BY ITO, WARD 1( 4), JAIPUR TO SH. SUBHASH AJMERA AS LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. TARACHAND AJMERA. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, ITO WARD 1(4 ) WAS AWARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED AND AS A RESULT, THE NOTICE U/ S 148 WAS ISSUED TO SH. SUBHASH AJMERA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. THE ITO WARD 1(4) WAS EQUALLY AWARE OF THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS OF THE DECEA SED ASSESSEE WHERE HE LAST STAYED BEFORE HIS DEATH I.E, 3659, BHOOT KE KUYE KI GALI, M.S.B KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR WHICH ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE R ESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE LEGAL HEIR, SH. SUBHASH AJMERA. THEREFORE, THE QUE STION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHO HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA WHERE THE DE CEASED ASSESSEE WAS LAST RESIDING I.E, 3659, BHOOT KE KUYE KI GALI, M.S.B KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR IN TERMS OF SECTION 124(1)(B) OF THE ACT WHICH READ S AS UNDER: ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 6 124. (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 , THE ASSESSING 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 O R PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION I S SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIE D ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, IF 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. 8. THE ANSWER TO THE SAID QUESTION IS NOT HARD TO F IND AND THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN BY ITO WARD 1(4) WHERE SHE HAS ADMITTED THAT SHE DOESNT HAVE THE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER AND JURISDICTION L IES WITH ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR AS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER NO. ITO/W-1(4)/JPR/15-16 D ATED 21.03.2015 WRITTEN BY ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR TO THE PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF READS AS UNDER:- NO./ITO/W-1(4)/JPR/15-16 DATED 21.04.2015 TO, THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, JAIPUR (THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL) SIR, SUB:- PENDING ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y 2008-09 U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF LATE SH. TARACHAND AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR SHRI SUBHASH AJMER A- PAN AATPA4912G), 3659, BHOOT KE KUVEN KI GALI, MOTI SIN GH BHOMIO KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR PAN AATPA4923B- KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 7 AN INFORMATION FROM DY. DIT (INV.)-II, JAIPUR WAS R ECEIVED ON 23.03.2015 IN THE CASE OF SHRI TARACHAND AJMERA PAN AATPA492 3B, 3659 BHOOT KE KUYE KI GALI, MSB KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR, THAT A SSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO PROPERTIES VIZ. D-43, SUBHASH MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIP UR AND PLOT NO. 6 CIVIL LINES JAIPUR DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,00,000/- AND 20,00,000/- RECEIVED BY HIM ON 14.0 5.2007. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT (INV.)-II, JAIPUR, N OTICE U/S 148 FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE ON 26.03.2015. SHRI SUBHA SH AJMERA IS ALSO ASSESSED IN WARD-2(1), JAIPUR. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY TRANSFER THE PAN- AATP A4923B OF LATE SHRI TARACHAND AJMERA IN WARD-2(1), JAIPUR AS THE JURISD ICTION OVER THE CASE LIES WITH ITO, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR. YOURS FAITHFULLY, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR 9. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ITO WARD 1(4 ), JAIPUR HERSELF HAS STATED THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE DOES NOT LIE WI TH HER BUT WITH ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR. THE AFORESAID COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN WRITTE N TO THE PR. CIT VERY NEXT MONTH OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 26.03.2015. APPAREN TLY, THERE WAS NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF LD PR. CIT AND PAN OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO ITO WARD 2(1) AND CONTINUES WITH ITO WARD 1(4) AND HAVING ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148, SHE CONTINUED WIT H THE PROCEEDINGS AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ITO, WARD 1(4 ), JAIPUR BUT ONCE SHE IS CLEAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER LIES WI TH ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR, MERELY BECAUSE THE PERMISSION HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE LD. PR. CIT FOR TRANSFER OF PAN, SHE CANNOT PROCEED AND PASS THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IN ABSENCE OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION AT FIRST PLACE WHICH IS G OVERNED BY LAST KNOWN RESIDENCE ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 8 ADDRESS OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AS MANDATED BY SEC TION 124(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE FACT THAT JURISDICTION OVER LAST KNOWN RESIDENC E ADDRESS OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE LIES WITH ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR IS ALSO CO RROBORATED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 IN CASE OF THE LEGAL HEIR, SHRI SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA WHO HAPPENS T O SHARE THE SAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AS THAT OF THE DECEASED ASSESSE E AND WHICH IS PASSED BY ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR. THEREFORE, WHERE THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE DECEASED ASSESSEE LIES WITH I TO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO WARD 1(4) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND SET-ASIDE FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION. 10. REGARDING CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT P ROVIDED U/S 124(3) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE S ERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND 142(1) AND IN ANY CASE WHERE THE ITO WARD 1(4) HERS ELF IS CLEAR THAT THE JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THE DECEASE ASSESSEE DO ESNT LIE WITH HER AND LIES WITH ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR AND HAS WRITTEN A LETTE R AS EARLIER AS 21.04.2015 TO LD. PR. CIT AND THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION BY THE OFF ICE OF LD PR. CIT TILL THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO BASIS TO BLAME THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING THE LATE OBJECTIONS AS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 124(3) COMES IN PLAY ONLY ON SATISFACTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT. 11. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT JURISDICTION OVER THE DECEASED ASSESSEE LIES WITH T HE ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR AND FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH 147 BY ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR DESERVES TO BE S ET ASIDE. ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 9 12. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS OF THE CASE HAVE BECOME I NFRUCTIOUS AND ARE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/01/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31/01/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 61/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 10 ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WAR D 1(3), JAIPUR 11 ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WAR D 1(3), JAIPUR 12 ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WAR D 1(3), JAIPUR 13 ITA NO. 61/JP/2017 SH. SUBHASH CHAND AJMERA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WAR D 1(3), JAIPUR 14