Case Law Details
Divya Raghavan Vijayan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
even though in the order sheet it is written by the ACIT Circle-3 Kalyan that he had issued the 143(2) notice on Aug 30th 2015, but in the same file, I find that the Chief Commissioner has transferred the jurisdiction of assessee’s case from ITO ward-33, Thane to ACIT-Circle-3, Kalyan only on 2nd Dec, 2015. Therefore, on the short legal point, I find that the ACIT-Circle-3, Kalyan who has framed the assessment of assessee for AY. 2014-15 u/s 143(3) of the Act has not issued the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act (refer decision in the case of Hotel Blue Moon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal 417 ITR 325), before the cut-off date that is falling on 30th Sep, 2015. Consequently, the ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan could not have framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2016. (even though it is noted that ITO ward 33, Thane had issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 03.09.2015, however, the AO who frames the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act needs to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before 30th Sep, 2015 for the relevant AY.). Therefore, I find that the assessee succeeds on the short point that since, the ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan had not issued/served the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before cutoff date for AY. 2014-15 i.e. 30th Sep, 2015, he could not have framed the assessment order under 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, it is held that in the present facts of the case, the ACIT-3, Kalyan did not had jurisdiction to frame the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the addition/disallowance made by him is non-est in the eyes of law and therefore is directed to be deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against order of the Ld.CIT(A)-3 Nasik, dated 01-05-2018 for A.Y. 2014-15.
2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the addition/disallowance of the expenditure to the tune of Rs.16,80,000/-. The assessee has filed before this Tribunal an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to have made the disallowance on the ground of. The additional grounds [revised/amended ground of appeal] has been filed before this Tribunal a copy of which was given to the department also vide letter dated 25th July, 2022 which reads as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
