Surendra Kumar Daga, Raipur V. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 915/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3250 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R B DOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 68; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR DAGA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W ARD-36(2), C/O. MAYA RUI BHANDAR , KOLKATA. CHUDI LANE, EDWARD ROAD, SADAR BAZAR, RAIPUR (CG) [PAN ACVPD 7464 L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.B. DOSHI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. SINGH, CIT D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.10.2021 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT IN SHORT), KOLKATA COMMUNICATED TO ASSESSEE ON 27.03.2 018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT) WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) DATED 30.03. 2016 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2013-14 W AS SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR REFRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SUPERVISOR Y JURISDICTION. 2. AS PER ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE REVISIONAL ACTION OF THE PCIT WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A .O.) WAS DIRECTED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DENOVO AFTER MAKING ENQUIRIES ON THE POINTS SET OUT IN TH E NOTICE WHICH HAS ALREADY EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED DU RING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A.Y. 2013-14. TH E ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE PCIT UNDER SE CTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 10 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVISION IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE INSTANT CA SE WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 BY THE A.O. STATIONED AT KOLKATA (ITO, W ARD-36(2), KOLKATA WHEREBY INCOME RETURNED AT RS.6,11,178/- WAS ASSESSED AT RS .9,77,970/-. THE CASE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE WERE CALLED BY TH E REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER (PCIT), KOLKATA. THE PCIT OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF REVENUE. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 08.11.2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD BY THE PCIT, KOLKATA. AS PER THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE REVISIO NAL COMMISSIONER ALLEGED THAT: I) THE ASSESSEE FILED A SUBMISSION BEFORE THE A.O. STATING THAT HIS CASE MIGHT BE TRANSFERRED TO RAIPUR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREAD Y SHIFTED TO RAIPUR. HOWEVER, THE CASE COULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TILL THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2016 BECAUSE OF LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE. II) AGAINST THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) ISSUED ON 17.02.2016, PART DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED ON 14.03.2016 WHILE SOM E MORE DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON 29.03.2016 AND THAT EVEN SUCH COMP LIANCE WAS NOT COMPLETE. III) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY AND PROPER ENQUIRIES FOR WANT OF TIME FOR TOTAL INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,22,57,150/- MADE IN THE LAND PROPERTY BUT THE SOURCE WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DEFENCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 WAS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO MAKE NECESSARY INVESTIGATION ON LOANS AGAINST THE INVESTMENTS IN T HE LAND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER MAKI NG ENQUIRIES IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 10 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA. THE CASE RECORDS WERE THEREAFTER TRANSFERRED TO RAIPUR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE KEY POINT OF HIS SUBMIS SIONS ARE : I) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS ILLEGAL AS THE A. O. WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT KOLKATA DID NOT HAVE LAWFUL JUR ISDICTION TO INDULGE IN ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON THAT THE JURISDICTION OVE R THE ASSESSEE VESTED WITH THE A.O. AT RAIPUR AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEREA S THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ITO 36(2), KOLKATA. HENCE, EARLIE R THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED BY NON-JUDICIAL OFFICER RENDE RING IT ILLEGAL, SUCH NON-EST ORDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVISED UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT. II) THE CASE WAS REMANDED BY THE PCIT FOR MAKING PR OPER ENQUIRIES ALLEGEDLY NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O. BUT SUCH DIRECTIONS COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT THE PCIT HIMSELF MAKING SOME MINIMAL ENQUIR Y ON THE FACTS ALREADY ON RECORD AND ENQUIRED BY A.O.. III) ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF INVESTM ENT OF LAND WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND THEREON AND HENCE A FURTHER ENQUIRY CONTEMPLATED BY THE PCIT IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST GROUND TOWARDS L ACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. CONCERNED TO ASSESS THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS FU NDAMENTAL AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IN DEMONSTRATION OF THIS PLEA THAT THE ITO, 36(2) KOLKATA COULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THUS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO, THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AS PER PAN DATAB ASE WAS WITH THE A.O. RAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED FROM KOLKATA TO RAIPUR AND , THEREFORE, REQUEST WAS MADE WAY BACK ON 05.10.2012 TO NSDL FOR INCORPORATI NG THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE PAN DATABASE. IN CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH REQUEST, THE CHANGE IN ADDRESS WAS ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 4 OF 10 CARRIED OUT BY NSDL AND A NEW PAN CARD WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE ON 16.10.2012 AS PER WHICH A NEW ADDRESS WAS INCORPORA TED IN THE DATABASE W.E.F. 16.10.2012. THE SHIFT IN THE JURISDICTION FROM KOL KATA TO RAIPUR WAS THUS CARRIED OUT MUCH BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. OF KOLKATA ON 05.09.2014. THE LEARNED COUNSEL THEREAF TER ADVERTED TO JURISDICTION NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120(1) AS PER WHI CH THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO-4(2) R AIPUR. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 WAS ALS O FILED WITH THE A.O. AT RAIPUR. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THER EAFTER, EARNESTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION DATED 3 1.08.2012 TO THE CIT-12, KOLKATA FOR TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS FROM KOLKATA T O RAIPUR AS APPEARING AT PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE REQUEST TO THE CIT-12, KOLKATA WAS ALSO MADE IN AUGUST 2012 LONG BEFORE TH E ISSUE OF NOTICE IN SEPTEMBER 2014. THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THEREAFTER, A DVERTED TO RULE 12E OF I.T. RULES, 1962 WHICH SPECIFIES AUTHORITY WHO IS EMPOWE RED TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. RULE 12E SAYS THAT AUTH ORITY ENTITLED TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE IS THE AUTHORITY WHICH IS AUTHORISED BY CBDT FOR THIS PURPOSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH AUTHORISATION IS GIVEN TO CBDT UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, SUCH AUTHORITY ONLY ISSUES NO TIFICATION FOR JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 120(1) & (2) THEREOF. IT IS THAT AUTHORITY WHICH IS CONFERRED JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 120(1) ONLY CAN ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE JURISDICTION WAS VESTED WITH A.O. AT RAIPUR IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION BY CBDT UNDER SECTION 120(1), THE A.O. AT KOLKATA WAS OUSTED AND COULD NOT HAVE I SSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY THE A.O. AT KOLKATA ITSELF IS ILLEGAL AND THUS BASED ON SUCH ILLEGAL NOTICE THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET INTO MOTION AND CONCLUDED. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH ILLEGAL NOTICE IS ALSO VOID AB INITIO AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT APART FROM ALL THE EFFORTS PUT BY TH E ASSESSEE TOWARDS BRINGING TO NOTICE OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES FOR CHANGE OF JURISDICTION, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O. AT KOLKATA WAS NOT VALID BECAUS E THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CARRIED BUSINESS AT KOLKATA NOR RESIDING THERE AT T HE RELEVANT TIME. SIGNIFICANTLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS ALSO FILED WITH ITO, RAIPUR AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FI LED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 5 OF 10 NO.20. THE A.O. AT KOLKATA VERY WELL KNEW THAT HE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH FACT IS EVIDENT FROM NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 (PAGE 21 OF PAPER BOOK) AS PER WHI CH THE A.O. CLEARLY NOTED THAT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TRANSFER OF CA SE TO RAIPUR WAS ALREADY PENDING WITH CIT-12, KOLKATA BUT THE JURISDICTION W AS NOT SHIFTED AND TRANSFERRED BY THE CIT-12, KOLKATA. THE LEARNED COUNSEL NEXT S UBMITTED THAT AS PER THE INCOME TAX RECORDS, JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WA S EVENTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO RAIPUR VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2018 IN PURSUANCE OF HIS SOLE APPLICATION DATED 31.08.2012. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION WAS PROMPTLY CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O., KOLKATA VIDE LETTER DATED 09.10.2014 I.E. WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND AT THE TIME OF CHALLENGE, A TIME OF MORE THAN THREE MONTHS WERE AV AILABLE BEFORE THE A.O. FOR TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO THE LAWFUL JURISDICTION. T HUS, FAILURE OF THE A.O. TO FOLLOW THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT ON CORRECT JURISDIC TION AS WELL AS THE PRESCRIBED LAW IN THIS REGARD IS SQUARELY ATTRIBUTABLE WITH TH E DEPARTMENT. HE THUS, IN ESSENCE, CONTENDED THAT, FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENT S, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED PROMPTLY, APPLIED FOR THE CHANGE OF JURISDICTION MUCH PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND IMM EDIATELY PLACED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE A.O. ON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AFTER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A .O., KOLKATA IN DEFIANCE OF PRESCRIBED LAW WITHOUT HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER TH E ASSESSEE IS FATAL AND NON-EST AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 COULD NOT BE UTIL ISED TO IMPROVE UPON SUCH NON- EST ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL THUS CONTENDED THAT ON THIS SOLE POINT OF TOTAL LACK OF JURISDICTION ON THE A.O. PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHOLE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY AND THE REVISIONAL ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON A NON-EST ORDER IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE AT THE THRESHOLD. 6.1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE P CIT HAS WRONGLY REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. PERFUNCTORILY FO R MAKING ENQUIRY TO PASS FRESH ORDER ON CERTAIN POINTS. BEFORE DOING SO, THE PCIT OUGHT TO HAVE CARRIED OUT SOME ENQUIRY ON THE BONAFIDES OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE FACTUAL POSITION WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT OF LA W AS PER SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 6 OF 10 6.2. ON MERITS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND THE A.O. ALREADY MADE SUITABLE ENQUIRY FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE INITIAL BURDEN CASTS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS THUS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS NATURE AND SOURC E OF CREDIT AND THE EXTENT OF ENQUIRY DESIRED IN A GIVEN CASE IS LEFT TO THE DISC RETION OF THE A.O. ONCE THE LENDERS HAVE ADMITTED HAVING GIVEN THE LOAN, NO ADD ITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD IN SEVERAL JUD ICIAL PRECEDENTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ENQUIRY AS ENVISAGED BY THE PCIT IS TOWARDS SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE LENDER WHICH, IN TURN, MEANS AFFAIRS OF THE LENDERS ARE SOUGHT TO BE EXAMINED UNDER REVISIONAL DIRECTION IN THE GARB OF ENQUIRY. SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE CONTRARY TO SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HOLDING THE FIELD INCLUDING PCIT VS. SHREEJI PRINTS (P) LTD. (GUJ.) TAX APPEAL NO.828 OF 2019 - JUDGEMENT DATED 03.02.2020. 6.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL ADVERTED TO THE REASONS GIV EN BY THE PCIT THAT NO OBJECTION CAN BE TAKEN TOWARDS LACK OF JURISDICTION AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SUCH LINE OF ARG UMENT IS FALLACIOUS ON THE FACE OF IT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY TAKEN OBJECTIO NS BEFORE THE A.O. IMMEDIATELY ON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE A CT AND LONG BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND SIGNIFICANTLY WITHIN TIME ALL OWED UNDER SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D ONE EVERYTHING WITHIN HIS COMMAND TO DESIST THE A.O. AT KOLKATA TO CONTINUE W ITH THE ASSESSMENT AND THUS CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE PRESCRI BED STATUTORY PROCEDURE ENJOINED IN LAW TO ASSUME JURISDICTION FOR CARRYING OUT THE ASSESSMENT. 6.4 THE LEANED COUNSEL THUS SUBMITTED IN CONCLUSION THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON AN ILLEGAL AND NON-EST ASSESSMENT ORDER I S VOID ON THE FACE OF IT AND ON MERIT ALSO THE DIRECTION GIVEN IN THE REVISIONAL OR DER IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED CIT DR FOR THE REVENUE S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE REVISIONAL ACTION AND CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT A MA TTER OF DISPUTE THAT ORIGINALLY, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE LAY WITH THE ITO, KO LKATA. SUCH JURISDICTION WAS NOT TRANSFERRED FROM KOLKATA TO RAIPUR BY ANY ORDER UND ER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE JURISDICTION CONTINUED WITH THE A.O. , KOLKATA. THUS, IN TERMS OF VALID & SUBSISTING JURISDICTION AVAILABLE TO THE A.O., KO LKATA, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND HENCE, CONSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT ODER CANNOT BE ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 7 OF 10 ASSAILED. THE LEARNED D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NO T OPEN TO HIM TO CONTEND THAT THE A.O., KOLKATA WAS PRECLUDED FROM CONTINUING WIT H THE ASSESSMENT. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. TO BEGIN WITH, WE ADVERT TO THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, NON-EST AND CONSEQUENTLY SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISIONAL PROCEE DINGS. FROM THE FACTS DEMONSTRATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE PAN RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CHANGED TO INCORPORATE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND JURISDICTION IN OCTOBER 2012. PERTINENTLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO FILED AT INCOME TAX OFFICE, RAIPUR IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH CHANGE. THE NO TICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O., KOLKATA I N SEPTEMBER 2014. NOTICEABLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION TO THE JUR ISDICTION BEFORE THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH EARLIER PETITI ON FOR TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 127 DATED 31.08.2012 IMMEDIATELY ON ISSUANCE OF SUCH SC RUTINY NOTICE. ANOTHER OBJECTION WAS FILED TO THE A.O., KOLKATA ON JURISDI CTION AND FOR SEEKING TRANSFER OF CASE TO RAIPUR COUNTERPART ON 20.07.2015. THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER WAS HOWEVER ULTIMATELY PASSED WITHOUT PAYING ANY HEED TO THE AT TEMPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND FOR APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION. 9. THE JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. IS BY VIRTUE OF SEC TION 124 OF THE ACT WHICH, IN TURN, REFERS TO NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER POWERS CO NFERRED BY SECTION 120(1) & (2). IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 120(1), THE JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT LIES WITH THE A.O. AT RAIPUR. THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2013- 14 IN QUESTION AS WELL AS THE RETURN OF THE EARLIER YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. AT RAIPUR. AS PER RULE 12 E OF THE I.T. RULES 1962, THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT IS THE AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY THE BOARD. SUCH AUTHORISATION IS GIVEN BY THE B OARD UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. HENCE, ON A COMBINED READING, ONLY THE A.O. N OTIFIED UNDER SECTION 120(1) & (2) CAN ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IN RESPEC T OF AN ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS NOTIFIED FOR JURISDICTION AT RAI PUR COUNTERPART. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER CARRYING BUS INESS AT KOLKATA NOR RESIDING THERE, THE KOLKATA A.O. DID NOT EVEN HAVE ANY REMOT E AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND TAKE COMMAND OVER THE JURISDICTION TO ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 8 OF 10 ASSESS THE INCOME. NOTICEABLY, NO RETURN WAS AVAIL ABLE BEFORE THE A.O., KOLKATA. THE A.O. WELL KNEW THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTI ON OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE THAT NOTICE I SSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS NEITHER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NOR IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NOTIFICATION OF THE BOARD. THE ACTION OF A.O., KOLKATA TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS THUS TOTALLY INDEFENSIBLE AND CON SEQUENTLY JURISDICTION EXERCISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL, RENDERING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER NULL AND VOID. 10. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. PCIT IN ITA NO.2269/DEL/2017 & OTHER S, ORDER DATED 10.12.2018, HAVE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WHERE THE UNDERLYING ASSESSMENT ORDER I N ITSELF SUFFERS FROM VICE OF ILLEGALITY. IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 11. HAVING REGARD TO THE DELINEATIONS ON THE POINT OF JURISDICTION NOTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS OURSELVE S ON ASPECTS OF MERIT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON INAPPLICABILITY OF SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT. 12. REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. PRONOUNCED ON 12.10.2021 AS PER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES,1963. SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY PBN/* ITA NO.915/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 9 OF 10 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER UE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR