SHWETABH VIKRAM GUPT,VARANASI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), VARANASI

ITA 60/VNS/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shwetabh Vikram Gupt, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary legal issue was the validity of a notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by a non-jurisdictional officer. The appellant argued that the notice was not issued by the correct jurisdictional officer, the ITO-Ward 2(3), Varanasi, but by the Assistant Commissioner, Range-1, Varanasi, who was not the designated officer for this jurisdiction. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Hotel Blue Moon and a similar case by the Raipur Bench, agreed with the appellant and quashed the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26029 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362, G.P. Infraventures vs. ITO ITA No.94/RPR/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH BASAL
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH(SMC), VARANASI BEFORE: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.60/VNS/2024 (Assessment Year :2017-18) Shwetabh Vikram Gupt N-1/60, Nagwa Varanasi-221 001 Uttar Pradesh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3) Varanasi PAN/GIR No.AFIP69203N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashish Basal, Advocate Revenue by Smt. Kavita Meena Date of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (A.M): Assessee has filed this appeal against order dated 19/02/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the A.Y.2017-18. 2. Though the assessee has raised many grounds, the ld. AR argued on the legal issue of non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by ITO-Ward 2(3), Varanasi. Inviting our attention to the copy of notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act placed at page 7 & 8 of the paper book, the ld. AR submitted ITA No.60/VNS/2024 Shwetabh Vikram Gupt 2 that the Assistant Commissioner, Range-1, Varanasi has issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that, in the return of income filed for A.Y.2015-16 to 2017-18 and also in the return of income filed for the succeeding A.Y.2018-19, the designation of the jurisdictional AO has been mentioned by the Income Tax department as “ITO-Ward 2(3), Varanasi” only. In support of this submission, he invited my attention to copies of acknowledgement of the return of income of various years placed in pages 74-77 of the paper book. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that jurisdiction of the assessee has always remained with the ITO-Ward 2(3), Varanasi. In these circumstances, the ITO-Ward 2(3), Varanasi is only having jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax cannot be considered to be jurisdictional assessing officer and hence the notice u/s 143(2) issued by him is not valid. He submitted that the assessing officer. Ward 2(3), Varanasi has only completed the assessment on the strength of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner, meaning thereby, the jurisdictional assessing officer has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed, as he will not get jurisdiction to scrutinise the return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362. The ld. AR further stated that an identical issue of issuing notice u/s.143(2) by non-jurisdictional Officer was examined by the Raipur Bench ITA No.60/VNS/2024 Shwetabh Vikram Gupt 3 of the Tribunal in the case of G.P. Infraventures vs. ITO in ITA No.94/RPR/2020 and, vide its order dated 23/11/2023, the Tribunal has held that the assessment order passed on the basis of notice u/s.143(2) issued by a non-Jurisdictional Officer is liable to be quashed as the same has been passed without acquiring jurisdiction in valid manner. 3. The ld. DR on the contrary submitted that the assessee has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer before him and hence, assessee could not have raised this issue now. 4. I heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The question here is not of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order. The said assessing officer, viz., ITO, Ward 2(3), Varanasi has always remained as the jurisdictional AO for the assessee. The issue is whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has issued a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act before assuming the jurisdiction for scrutinising the return of income filed by the assessee or not. In a case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to scrutinise the return of income without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. 5. In the instance case, the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act for the year under consideration has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Range-1, Varanasi. As per the copies of acknowledgement of returns filed for A.Y.2015-16 to ITA No.60/VNS/2024 Shwetabh Vikram Gupt 4 2018-19, the Assessing Officer who is having jurisdiction over the assessee is stated as ITO-Ward 2(3), Varanasi to the Assistant Commissioner, Range-1, Varanasi. The impugned assessment order has also passed by him. However, the fact would remain that the ITO, Ward-2(3), Varanasi has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. It has been issued by a non-jurisdictional officer and hence the same cannot be recognised. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra). I find support for my decision from the order passed by the Raipur bench of ITAT in the case of G.P. Infraventures vs. ITO (supra). Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. I hold accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 09/10/2024 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Varanasi; Dated 09/10/2024 KARUNA, sr.ps ITA No.60/VNS/2024 Shwetabh Vikram Gupt 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Varanasi 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Varanasi. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Varanasi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "