Sanat Kumar Sahana Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, disposed of two appeals filed by the assessees against identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16. Since the issues involved were common, both appeals were heard together and decided through a common order. The Tribunal admitted an additional legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, holding that it involved a pure question of law based on facts already available on record.
The undisputed facts showed that both assessees had filed their returns before the ITO, Ward-23(4), Hooghly, with returned incomes below Rs. 15 lakh. Under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31 January 2011, jurisdiction over non-corporate returns declaring income up to the prescribed monetary limit vested with the Income Tax Officer. The ITO, Ward-23(4), Hooghly issued notices under Section 143(2), but the assessments were ultimately completed by the ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly.
The Tribunal observed that despite being given an opportunity, the Revenue failed to produce any notification, circular or order demonstrating that jurisdiction had been transferred to the ACIT or that concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred under Sections 120(4) or 120(5) of the Income-tax Act. Referring to the statutory provisions of Sections 120 and 124, the Tribunal held that jurisdiction can be exercised only in accordance with directions or notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). An Assessing Officer can exercise powers only if jurisdiction has been validly vested by the Board.
