[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 … vs Raghvendra Mohta on 5 May, 2025
Author: T.S Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
1
o-9
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INICOME TAX]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/51/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA
VS
RAGHVENDRA MOHTA
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 5th May, 2025.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ...for appellant.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv.
Ms. Alisha Das, Adv.
Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv.
Mr. Samrat Das, Adv.
Ms. Elina Dey, Adv.
Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. ... for respondent.
The Court : There is a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal. As the delay
has been properly explained the same is condoned. The application is allowed.
This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 8.4.2024 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in
ITA/2416/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration :
"a. WHEATHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order
2
passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 on 29.12.2016 based on an incorrect understanding of the provisions of
Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with CBDTs Instruction No.
1/2011 issued vide F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1) dated 31.01.2011 which does
not fix any rigid jurisdiction but is made for equitable distribution of work and
thereby failing to appreciate that the Notice under Section 143(2) was correctly
issued by the ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata who was the Assessing Officer having
PAN jurisdiction over the assessee and that the subsequent assessment
completed by the Assessing Officer was a valid assessment?
b. WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order
passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 on 29.12.2016 purely on technical grounds and deleting the additions of
Rs. 42,27,500/- made u/s. 68 and Rs.1,48,657/- made U/s. 69C of the Income
Tax Act by disallowing the assessee's claim of exemption of bogus LTCG without
going into the merits of the case and examining the assessee's attempt to evade
taxes in an organized way by obtaining accommodation entries from entry
operators in the garb of Penny Stocks of "Ashika Credit Capital Ltd.?"
We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.
Abhratosh Mazumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder, learned
advocate for the respondent.
The assessee preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the
order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated
26.9.2017. One of the grounds urged before the learned Tribunal was that the
Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order did not have jurisdiction over the
case of the assessee and, therefore, the notice as well as the assessment order are bad
in law. The learned Tribunal took note of the facts and circumstances of the case and
found that the assessee filed its return of income declaring the income to be nil.
Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 10.9.2015 and notice under
3
section 142(1) dated 13.6.2016 was issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee
contended that the notices were without jurisdiction and relied upon section 120 of
the Act. In this regard, the assessee referred to the notification issued by the CBDT in
Instruction No.1 of 2011. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the facts of the
case and found that the assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer, who
inherently lacks jurisdiction to do so.
The learned Tribunal took note of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the
learned Tribunal in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT dated 3.2.2021.
Apart from other decisions and allowed the assessee's appeal, the revenue had
challenged the order passed in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. before this
court in ITAT/221/2022 etc. and by a judgment reported in 2022 (12) TMI 1514, the
appeal filed by the department was dismissed wherein one of the questions framed is
identical to the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue in the instant
case. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee'
appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground of
lack of inherent jurisdiction.
For the above reason, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of
law are answered against the revenue.
.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
Pkd./mg
AR[CR]
[ad_2]
Source link