L L LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

ITA 384/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves L.L. Logistics Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, which sustained the addition of Rs. 29,09,565 made by the assessing officer. The primary contention was the validity of the jurisdiction under which the assessment was made. The Tribunal examined the procedural history of the case, including the transfer of jurisdiction and the issuance of notices under sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was invalid due to the incorrect issuance of the notice by an officer without jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35776 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs. Rajdhani Jwellers and Gems (P) Ltd., Ananda Devcon (P) Limited Vs. ACIT, Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(2), Bhilai, M/s. Durga Manikanta Traders Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Raipur, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hotel Blue Moon, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) & Anr. V. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Peter Vaz Vs. CIT, CIT Vs. Ramesh D Patel, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nopany & Sons, Balaji Enterprise Vs. ACIT, Anderson Printing House (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Hillman Hosiery Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Soma Roy Vs. ACIT, Shri Sukumar Ch. Sahoo Vs. ACIT, Dy. CIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 292BB; 143(2); 192; 132; 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी रवीश सूद, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 L.L. Logistics Private Limited Ground Floor, 42, Essor Business Center, Broad Street, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700 019 (WB) PAN: AABCF1188N .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 09.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 2 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.07.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 22/03/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the assessing officer and order passed by Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre dated-30/07/2024 is illegal and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 29,09,565/- made by the assessing officer. 3. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which during the subject year, i.e. A.Y.2013-14 yet not commenced its business, had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 30.09.2013, declaring an income of Rs.1,49,300/-. 3 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 3. Before adverting to the facts involved in the present case, I deem it fit to cull out certain facts about the initiation of assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee company, as under: Date Particulars 02.09.2014 Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the DCIT- 2(1), Raipur (issued within stipulated time period), Page 3 of APB - The case of the assessee company was transferred to ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur pursuant to the jurisdictional Notification dated 15.11.2014 12.06.2015 Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur, Page 4 of APB. 09.07.2015 The assessee company filed an application requesting for transferring of its case to ITO, Kolkata. 07.12.2015 The case of the assessee company at its request was transferred to ITO-1(4), Kolkata. - The case of the assessee company was, thereafter, transferred to ITO-13(1), Kolkata - As the A.O at Kolkata informed that the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case was not vested with him, therefore, the case was transferred to ITO-Ward 3(1), Raipur. 14.01.2016 Notices u/ss. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, Page 5 of APB. 15.01.2016 The assessee company vide its letter dated 15.01.2016 challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO- 3(1), Raipur. - Objections raised by the assessee company as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur vide its letter dated 15.01.2016 were rejected by the A.O. 22.03.2016 Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur determining the income of the assessee company at Rs.30,58,865/- 4 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 4. As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O taking cognizance of the fact that commercial operation of the assessee company had yet not been commenced during the subject year, disallowed its claim of expenses of Rs.29,09,565/- by recharacterizing the same as a capital expenditure. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 22.03.2016 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.30,58,865/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. Ostensibly, the assessee company had assailed before the CIT(Appeals) the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the DCIT-2(1), Raipur for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, based on which, the impugned assessment was framed. However, the aforesaid claim of the assessee was rejected by the first appellate authority, observing as under: “9. Ground No. 1 & 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment passed u/s. 143(3) is bad in law and arbitrary, so as to assess the total income at Rs.30,58,865/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,49,300/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without having Jurisdiction over the case of the appellant. 9.1 Ground No. 1 & 2, being interrelated, are taken up together. I have gone through the assessment order, aforesaid ground of appeal, written submissions of the appellant, assertions made during the Video Conference and synopsis submitted after the VC. 5 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 9.2 Perusal of written submissions show that in its written submission, the appellant has contended that the AO in Raipur had no jurisdiction over the case and the actual jurisdiction was with the AO of Kolkata. It is noted that the same argument was raised by the appellant during the assessment proceedings, which has been deliberated upon, and countered, by the AO in detail, as mentioned in the body of the impugned assessment order. No reason has been furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings in support of his contention to differ from the argument extended by the AO in his order. The provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Act are very clear in this regard. For the sake of convenience, relevant provisions are reproduced here below: \"Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. 124. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of SCCti011 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 or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried 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. (2) Where a question arises under this section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director General or Director Generals the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer— (a) where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of section 11514/0 or under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under 6 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub- section (2) of section 143 or after the completion 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 (2) of section 1151ND or sub-section (1) of soot/on 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115tH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier; (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub- section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination 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 have 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 vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120.\" (emphasis supplied) 9.3 As the objection, on jurisdiction,-bias been raised by the appellant much later than the period specified u/s 124(3)(a) of the Act, the same is not maintainable. 9.4 During the course of VC and thereafter in the synopsis submitted by the appellant, it has contended, on jurisdiction, that though the actual jurisdiction pertained with ITO, notice was issued by a DCIT. It has been contended that as per the provisions of section 120 read with section 124 of the Act and in consonance to CBDT circular no.1/2011 dt. 31/01/2011 the correct jurisdiction of the appellant was with Income Tax Officer. However, the notice u/s.143(2) was issued by DCIT-2(1), Raipur. Appellant has relied upon several case laws in support of its contention that the assessment order has thus been passed without jurisdiction and is illegal. 7 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 9.5 In respect of the aforesaid contention of the appellant, it was pointed out at the time of VC also that this new objection (between ITO and DCIT), on jurisdiction, is being raised much later than the period specified u/s 124(3)(a) of the Act. Case laws relied upon by the appellant in the synopsis, both on the issue of binding nature of board circular on department and on the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer, have been carefully gone through. Judgments relied on by the appellant on the issue of binding nature of board circular on department are not at all in dispute. It is an undisputed fact that such circulars are binding on the officers. However, the issue under dispute is not of the binding nature of such circulars, but of the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Act, which limits (by time) the power of the assessee to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO. Judgments relied upon by the appellant are in totally different context, and therefore does not help its case. 9.6 On the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer, appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, couple of judgments of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and number of judgments of various Hon'ble ITAT, including the Jurisdictional ITAT. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the appellant in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 taxman 113 (SC); wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for framing assessment u/s 143(3), there should be a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and without valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, assessment order is illegal and void ab initio, is not exactly on the issue under dispute. The said judgment does not discuss on the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Act, and thus cannot be relied upon in its totality. 9.7 On the issue of provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in its recent judgment dated 01.05.2023 decided in SLP(C) No(s). 29304/2019, in the case of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) & Anr. V. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, has ordered as under: \"The impugned order set asides the assessment for AY 2014-2015 on the ground that the jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon the returns. The jurisdiction had been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142 (1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3) (a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142 (1). 8 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. It is clarified, therefore, that the assessing officer is free to complete assessment (in case the assessment order has not been issued) within the 60 days. In such event, the question of limitation shall not be raised by the assessee. The special leave petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application, if any, are disposed of\" 9.8 Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, becomes the law of the land, the ground of the appellant that the assessment order has passed without jurisdiction and is illegal, is held to be not maintainable. Ground No. 1 & 2 are thus dismissed.” Also, the contentions advanced by the assessee company qua the merits of the addition of Rs.29.09 lacs made by the A.O was rejected by the first appellate authority. 6. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the tribunal. 7. As Shri Praveen Khandelwal, the Ld. Authorized Representative ( for short ‘AR’) for the assessee company has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 02.09.2014, based on which, the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 22.03.2016 had been framed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, therefore, I shall first deal with the same. 9 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 8. Admittedly, as observed by me hereinabove, the DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur had issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 02.09.2024, i.e. within the prescribed time period. The Ld. AR states that as the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 30.09.2013, declaring an income of Rs.1,49,300/-, therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction over its case as per the CBDT Instruction No.01/2011, dated 31.01.2011 was exclusively vested with the ITOs. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had drawn my attention to the CBDT Instruction No.01/2011 (supra), which reveals that in respect of moffusil areas the pecuniary jurisdiction in the cases of corporate returns up to Rs.20 lacs remained with the ITOs. As is discernible from the assessment order, the pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company pursuant to the jurisdictional notification dated 15.11.2014 was transferred from DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur to ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur, wherein the latter is thereafter stated to have issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 12.06.2015. Although in case the DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur who had initially issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 02.09.2014 that was validly vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company, then the subsequent issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 12.06.2015 by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur would have been in order. However, the assessee had challenged before me the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed for issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 02.09.2014 by the 10 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur. The Ld. AR claims that as the DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur had no pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company, therefore, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 02.09.2014 that was though issued within the prescribed time period was non-est in the eyes of law. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitting that the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, i.e. the A.O holding valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company had though issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 14.01.2016, but the same having been issued beyond the prescribed time period had no existence in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contention had stated that as the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur had framed the assessment vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.03.2016 in absence of any valid notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment so framed by him cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) ACIT Vs. Rajdhani Jwellers and Gems (P) Ltd. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 444 (Raipur-Trib). (ii) Ananda Devcon (P) Limited Vs. ACIT (2024) 163 taxmann.com 372 ( Raipur-Trib.) (iii) Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(2), Bhilai, ITA No.158/RPR/2017 (iv) M/s. Durga Manikanta Traders Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, ITA No.59/RPR/2019 (v) Adarsh Rice Mill Vs. ITO, Raipur, ITA No.84/RPR/2022 11 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 9. Dr. Priyanka Patel, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by her that as the assessee company had failed to object to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the DCIT, Circle 2(1), Raipur in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities, therefore, as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act it could not now be permitted to raise the said objection in the course of the present proceedings. 10. 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 the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e. sustainability of the order passed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated, 22.03.2016 based on the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 02.09.2014 issued by the DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur, i.e. the A.O who as per the CBDT Instruction No.01/2011 dated 31.01.2011 was not vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company. I find that the aforesaid issue had been deliberated at length by the “Division Bench” of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of M/s. Durga Manikanta Traders Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, ITA No.59/RPR/2019, dated 12.12.2022, wherein the Tribunal had held as under: 12 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 “13. 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. 14. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had, inter alia, revised the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs. For the sake of clarity, we deem it fit to cull out the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011,Page 1 of APB, which reads as under: “INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Income Declared Income Declared (Mofussil areas) (Metro cities) ITOs ACs/DCs ITOs DCs/ACs Corporate returns Upto Rs.20 lacs Above Rs.30 lacs Upto Rs.30 lacs Above Rs.30 Lacs Non-corporate returns Upto Rs.15 lacs Above Rs.15 lacs Upto Rs.20 lacs Above Rs.20 lacs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011.” (emphasis supplied by us) As stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, the CBDT vide its aforesaid Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had, inter alia, revised the earlier existing monetary limit for assigning the 13 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 cases to ITOs/ACs/DCs w.e.f. 01.04.2011. On the basis of the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (supra) w.e.f 01.04.2011, the case of a non-corporate assessee located in a mofussil area having declared an income above Rs.15 lacs in his return of income is to be assigned to the ACs/DCs. As the case of the present assessee for the A.Y.2012-13 was selected for scrutiny assessment vide notice issued u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015, therefore, the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 that was applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2011 duly applied to his case. Also, as per the areas earmarked in the aforesaid Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 as the assessee is not located in any of those cities/stations which have been held to be metro cities, therefore, his case would be as that of a non- corporate assessee who is located in a mofussil area. Also, as is borne from the record the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 6,57,380/-. 15. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view, that as stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee who is located in a mofussil area i.e. Bhilai and had filed a non-corporate return for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2014-15 declaring an income of Rs.6,57,380/- was vested with the ITO, Ward 1(1), Bhilai. Although notice u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015 had been issued within the stipulated time period, i.e., within six months from the end of the relevant assessment year which would have expired as on 30.09.2015, however, the same was issued by the DCIT-1(1), Bhilai, i.e., an A.O who pursuant to the CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2011, dated 31.01.2011 was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. On the other hand the ITO-1(1), Bhilai, who as per the aforesaid CBDT Instruction (supra) was vested with the exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration had issued the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 05.05.2016, i.e., beyond the stipulated time period, therefore, no valid jurisdiction could have been assumed on the basis of the same for framing the assessment vide order under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.12.2016. 16. On the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, we are in agreement with the Ld. AR that the ITO-1(1), Bhilai could not have validly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2016 on the basis of the notice issued u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015 by the DCIT-1(1), Bhilai i.e. a non jurisdictional A.O. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High 14 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 Court of Bombay in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. UOI in W.P. No.3489 of 2019, dated 08.03.2022. In the said case the Hon’ble High Court by referring to the CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2011, dated 31.01.2011, had observed, that as the pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee before them who had returned an income of Rs.64.34 lacs was vested with the DCs/ACs, therefore, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the ITO who during the year under consideration had no pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee’s case was bad in the eyes of law. Considering the aforesaid lapse in the assumption of jurisdiction the Hon’ble High Court had quashed the notice that was issued by the ITO u/s.148 of the Act. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. ACIT, Circle-2 (2019) 110 taxmann.com 51 (Guj.). In the said case, though the A.O who had jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had recorded the ‘reasons to believe’ but notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued by another officer, therefore, the notice so issued u/s.148 of the Act was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court had thereafter, been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT, Circle-1 Vs. Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah [2020] 120 taxmann.com 318 (SC). Also, we find that the similar view had been taken by this Tribunal in its recent order passed in the case of Shri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Durg Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai in ITA No.158/RPR/2017 dated 17.10.2022, wherein dealing with the multi-facet contentions that were raised by the department, the Tribunal had observed as under: “13. On the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, we are in agreement with the Ld. AR that though the assessment proceedings were rightly initiated and initially embarked upon by Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai i.e. the officer who was vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, but the same thereafter had wrongly been framed by an officer who as observed by us hereinabove did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee in so far the year under consideration was concerned. As the criteria laid down vide the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 for conferring the varied jurisdictions with the ITOs/DCs/ACs on the basis of income declared by the assessee in his return of income is binding upon the department and has to be scrupulously followed, therefore, there can be no escape from the same for justifying assumption of jurisdiction by an officer other than that prescribed in the said instruction. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs etc. Vs. 15 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (2004) 267 ITR 272 (SC). In the aforesaid judgments it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that though the CBDT/CBEC circulars are not binding on court or the assessee, but the departmental authorities are bound by them and cannot act in contravention of the same. Also, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh). In its said order it was observed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that the administrative instructions issued by CBDT are binding on the Income-tax authorities. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the framing of the assessment in the case of the present assessee by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai is clearly found to be in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the same cannot be justified. 14. We shall now deal with the objection raised by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice(s) u/ss.143(2) and 142(1), dated 03.03.2015, therefore, it was not permissible for him to challenge the same for the first time in the course of the proceeding before the tribunal. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the ld. DR we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. On a careful perusal of Section 124 of the Act, it transpires that the same deals with the issue of “territorial jurisdiction” of an Assessing Officer. Ostensibly, sub-section (1) of Section 124 contemplates vesting with the A.O jurisdiction over a specified area by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) and sub- section (2) of Section 120 of the Act. On the other hand sub- section (2) of Section 124 contemplates the manner in which any controversy as regards the territorial jurisdiction of an A.O is to be resolved. Apropos, sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, the same places an embargo upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O where he had initially not raised such objection within a period of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143. In sum and substance, the obligation cast upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where the assessee objects to the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the A.O, and not otherwise. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz Vs. CIT, 16 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 Tax Appeal Nos. 19 to 30 of 2017, dated 05.04.2021 and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh D Patel (2014) 362 ITR492 (Guj.). In the aforesaid cases the Hon’ble High Courts have held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 which places an embargo on an assessee to raise an objection as regards the validity of the jurisdiction of an A.O would get triggered only in a case where the dispute of the assessee is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction and would have no relevance in so far his inherent jurisdiction for framing the assessment is concerned. Also, support is drawn from a recent judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nopany & Sons (2022) 136 taxmann.com 414 (Cal). In the case before the Hon’ble High Court the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward-3 to ITO, Ward-4 and the impugned order was passed by the ITO, Ward-4 without issuing notice u/s 143(2) and only in pursuance to the notice that was issued by the ITO, Ward-3, who had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. Considering the fact that as the assessment was framed on the basis of the notice issued under Sec. 143(2) by the assessing officer who had no jurisdiction to issue the same at the relevant point of time, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the assessment. Apart from that, the aforesaid view is also supported by the order of the ITAT, Kolkata ‘B’ Bench in the case of OSL Developers (p) Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2021) 211 TTJ (Kol) 621 and that of ITAT, Gauhati Bench in the case of Balaji Enterprise Vs. ACIT (2021) 187 ITD 111 (Gau.). Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the assessee’s objection to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai is by no means an objection to his territorial jurisdiction, but in fact an objection to the assumption of jurisdiction by him in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 124 would not assist the case of the revenue. 15. We shall now deal with the contention of the Ld. DR that as both the officers in question i.e. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilaiand the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai as per sub-section (5) of Section 120 were vested with concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee, therefore, initiation of the assessment proceedings by the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai vide notice issued u/s.143(2) dated 24.09.2013, which thereafter had culminated into an assessment framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai 17 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 30.03.2015 does not suffer from any infirmity. In our considered view the aforesaid contention of the Ld. DR is absolutely misplaced and in fact devoid and bereft of any merit. As the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 exclusively vests the pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13 with the ACs/DCs, therefore, in our considered view despite vesting of concurrent jurisdiction with the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai and the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai the assessment in his case for the year under consideration could only have been framed by the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai. Neither is there any reason discernible from the orders of the lower authorities nor demonstrated before us by the ld. DR which would by any means justify framing of the assessment vide impugned order u/s 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. Apart from that, we find that as per the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 127 of the Act, where a case is to be transferred by authorities therein specified from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him, then he is under an obligation to record his reasons for doing so after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so. For the sake of clarity sub-section (1) of Section 127 is culled out as under: “(1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] commissioner 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, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him.” On a careful perusal of the aforesaid mandate of law, it transpires, that even in a case where jurisdiction over the case of an assessee that is vested with one A.O (having concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee) is to be transferred to another A.O (having concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee), even then the authority specified under sub-section (1) of Section 127 is obligated to record his reasons for doing so. Considering the aforesaid position of law, we are of the considered view that now when in the present case the assessment proceedings were initiated by the Dy. CIT, Circle- 1, Bhilai vide notice u/s.143(2), dated 24.09.2013, which thereafter 18 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 were taken up and culminated by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2015, then, as per the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Act, the specified authority i.e. Commissioner or above was obligated to have recorded his reasons for transferring the case from the aforesaid Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai to the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. However, nothing has been brought to our notice which would justify the transfer of jurisdiction over the assessee’s case from the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai to Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. 16. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that as in the case of the assessee the assessment order u/s.143(3), dated 30.03.2015 had been passed by a non-jurisdictional officer i.e. the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, which is in clear contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Before parting, we may herein observe that a similar issue as regards the validity of an assessment framed by an A.O who had invalidly assumed jurisdiction in contravention to the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 had came up in a host of cases before the various benches of the Tribunal, wherein the respective assessments framed were struck down, for the reason that the same were passed by officers who were not vested with the requisite jurisdiction as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Anderson Printing House (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 548 (Kolkata-Trib.). In its order the Tribunal had after drawing support from the order of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2517 (Kol) of 2019, dated 03.02.2021 which in turn had relied on the earlier orders passed in the case of Hillman Hosiery Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2634/Kol/2019; Soma Roy Vs. ACIT, ITA No.463/Kol/2019 dated 08.01.2020; and Shri Sukumar Ch. Sahoo Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2073/Kol/2016 dated 27.09.2017, had struck down the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O who had framed the assessment in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, observing as under: “5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions would reveal that the jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities may be fixed not only in respect of territorial area but also I.T.A. No.339/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anderson Printing House Pvt. Ltd having regard to a person or classes of persons and income or classes of income also. Therefore, the CBDT having regard to the income as per return has fixed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers. The ld. Counsel in this respect has relied upon the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I), for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: 19 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 \"Instruction No.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I), DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Income Declared Income Declared (Mofussil areas) (Metro cities) ITOs ACs/DCs ITOs DCs/ACs Corporate returns Upto Rs.20 lacs Above Rs.30 lacs Upto Rs.30 lacs Above Rs.30 Lacs Non- corporate returns Upto Rs.15 lacs Above Rs.15 lacs Upto Rs.20 lacs Above Rs.20 lacs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011. 6. Now, in this case, the assessment has been framed by the ACIT. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 127 of the Act as under: Power to transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Commissioner 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, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. 7. A perusal of the above statutory provisions would reveal that jurisdiction to transfer case from one Assessing Officer to other Officer lies with the Officers as mentioned in section 127(1) who are of the rank of Commissioner or above. No document has been produced on the file by the Department to show that the case was transferred by the competent authority from Income Tax Officer to ACIT. The notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by ACIT which was beyond his jurisdiction and the same 20 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 is therefore, void ab initio. Under the circumstances, the assessment framed by ACIT, is bad in law as he did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to frame the assessment. The issue relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction also came into consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2517/Kol/2019 and Others vide order dated 03.02.2021, wherein the Tribunal further relying upon various other decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the assessment framed by Assessing Officer who was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to frame such assessment was bad in law. The relevant part of the order dated 03.02.2021 passed in ITA No.2517/Kol/2019 and Others is reproduced as under: \"5.2. The assessee relied on the recent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hillman Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 2634/Kol/2019, order dated 12.01.2021. We find that the issues that arise in this appeal are clearly covered in favour of the assessee. This order followed the principles of law laid down in a number of other decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench on this issue. 5.3. Kolkata \"B\" Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hillman Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.(supra) held as follows: \"10. In this case, the ITO Ward-3(3), Kolkata, issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 04/09/2014. In reply, on 22/09/2014, the assessee wrote to the ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata, stating that he has no jurisdiction over the assessee. 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. 8th January, 2020, under identical circumstances, held as under:- \"5. After hearing rival contentions, I admit this additional 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 Instruction 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- corporate 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, Circle-1(1), Durgapur, who had the jurisdiction 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 that the assessment is bad in law. 21 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 5.1. On merits, he rebutted the findings of the lower 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 the concurrent jurisdiction vests with the ITO as well as the ACIT and hence the assessment cannot 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 object 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 orders of the lower authorities. 7. I have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of 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), Durgapur. 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 case 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 Sukumar 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 doesn't have the jurisdiction to conduct assessment if it is above Rs 15 lakhs. Above Rs. 15 lacs income declared 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 notice 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 income is more than Rs. 15 lacs the case was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1, Haldia to ACIT, Circle-27 and the same was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia on 24.09.2014 and immediately ACIT issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: 22 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring 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 income 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 were 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.50,28,040/-. 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 limit was upto Rs.15 lacs; and if the returned income is above Rs. 15 lacs it was the AC/DC. So, since the returned income by assessee an individual is above Rs.15 lakh, then the jurisdiction to assess the assessee lies only by AC/DC and not ITO. So, therefore, only the AC/DC had the jurisdiction to assess 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. In 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 jurisdiction and issue notice. Admittedly, when the ITO realized that he did not had the pecuniary jurisdiction 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 notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. We note that the ACIT by assuming the jurisdiction after the time prescribed for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act notice became qoarum non judice after the limitation prescribed by the statute was crossed by him. Therefore, the issuance of notice by the ACIT, Circle-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 null and void in the eyes of law. Therefore, the legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the assessment and the appeal of assessee is allowed on the legal issue, the other grounds 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.” Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in the case of Kshirod Kumar Pattanaik Vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul, ITA No.380/CTK/2019 dated 10.12.2020. 17. Consequent to our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view that as in the present case before us the assessment had been framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai u/s. 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 in clear contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, which divested him of his jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under 23 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down in terms of our aforesaid observations. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations quash the order passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai for want of jurisdiction on his part.” 17. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as in the case of the present assessee before us the impugned assessment had been framed by the ITO-1(1), Bhilai vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 29.12.2016 on the basis of a notice u/s. 143(2), dated 24.09.2015 that was issued by the DCIT- 1(1), Bhilai, i.e., an A.O who at the relevant point of time was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, therefore, the assessment so framed cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Apropos the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 05.05.2016 by the ITO-Ward 1(1), Bhilai, we are of the considered view that as the said notice was issued after the lapse of the stipulated time period, i.e., beyond the specified time frame which expired as on 30.09.2015, therefore, the assessment order so framed would also not be saved on the said basis. To sum up, as the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 29.12.2016 had been framed by the ITO- Ward 1(1), Bhilai de-hors the issuance of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be sustained is liable to quashed. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.143(3), dated 29.12.2016 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 18. As we have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the other contentions that have been advanced by the Ld. AR qua the sustainability of the addition made by the A.O, which, thus, are left open. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.” As the facts and issue involved in the present appeal remains the same as were there before the “division bench” in the aforementioned case, therefore, I respectfully follow the same. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.143(3), dated 22.03.2016 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 24 L.L Logistics Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 384/RPR/2024 12. As I have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, therefore, I refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the other contentions that have been advanced by the Ld. AR qua the sustainability of the addition made by the A.O, which, thus, are left open. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of October, 2024. Sd/- (रवीश सूद /RAVISH SOOD) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 21st October, 2024 **#SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G) 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "