Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Jurisdiction Transfer Requires Section 127 Order -Directions u/s 120(5) cannot substitute a mandatory transfer order- ITAT Delhi Quashes Assessment
Assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs.52.49 lakh. Assessment was completed ex parte u/s 144. AO noted that case was initially selected for scrutiny by ITO, Ward 39(4), Delhi. Later it was transferred to ITO, Ward 36(4) & finally to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, who passed the assessment order on 21.12.2019. AO recorded that such transfer was made by JCIT, Range 36 through order dated 23.10.2019 u/s 120(5). The notices were issued to the email ID of the old Chartered Accountant of Assessee, who failed to respond, resulting in best judgment assessment.
Before Tribunal, Assessee argued that transfer of jurisdiction from Ward 39(4) to Ward 36(4) & thereafter to Ward 36(6) was without a valid order u/s 127. In absence of a transfer order u/s 127, jurisdiction could not be conferred on another AO. Reliance was placed on Delhi HC in Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd Vs ITO (466 ITR 26), which held that jurisdiction cannot be transferred merely by internal directions u/s 120 unless supported by order u/s 127. It was contended that participation or acquiescence cannot cure inherent lack of jurisdiction, relying on Bombay HC in CIT Vs Lalitkumar Bardia (84 taxmann.com 213) & SC in Kanwar Singh Saini (2012) 4 SCC 307.
