Notice u/s. 143(2) issued by non-jurisdictional AO is bad-in-law: ITAT Kolkata

 

Facts:

1. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued by ld. ACIT, Circle-24(1), Hooghly, however, the assessment in question has been framed by ITO, Ward-24(1), Hooghly.

2. As per provisions of section 120 of the Income Tax Act r.w. CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I) dated 31.01.2011, not only the territorial jurisdiction but also the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officers/Assessing Officer has been fixed by the CBDT and that if the returned income is less than Rs.20 lakhs for non-corporate assessees, the jurisdiction to frame to assessment lies to the Income Tax Officer whereas, if the returned is more than Rs.20 lakhs, the jurisdiction lies with the concerned ACIT/DCIT.

3. The assessee maintained that the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in this case lied with concerned ITO, Ward-24(1), Hooghly.

4. Issuing of notice u/s 143(2) by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee is sine qua non to assume jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3).

ITAT Kolkata held as below:

1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon’ reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC) that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is sine qua non to assume jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment in a case.

2. In this case, since the concerned Assessing Officer who had pecuniary jurisdiction to frame the assessment did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment framed was bad in law.

3. The impugned assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer, therefore, is bad in law and the same is hereby quashed.

The copy of the Appellate is as under:

1737977899-BsbKb9-1-TO (1)