Jurisdictionally Invalid Notice by AO Quashes Assessment | ITAT Raipur

Case Details: Rahul Tyagi vs. Income-tax Officer - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 981 (Raipur - Trib.)[19-03-2025]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member
• Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA for the Appellant.
• Dr Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Assessing Officer Ward-4(5), Raipur, issued the first notice under section 143(2) for initiating scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur, issued a second notice under section 142(1) and framed the assessment without any transfer order by the Principal Commissioner.

On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. The aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Raipur Tribunal held that the first notice under section 143(2) had been issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur. There is no evidence of any order of the PCIT, under section 127, that transfers jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer to another in the assessee’s case. It is also noted from the return and the department’s acknowledgement that the designation of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is mentioned as ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur.

If so, the first notice, i.e., issued under section 143(2) by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, is without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law. Similarly, suppose it is accepted that the actual jurisdiction is with the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. In that case, the first notice issued for initiating the scrutiny proceedings by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, is definitely without a valid jurisdiction over the assessee.

When the issuance of notice and framing of assessment order suffer from a lack of jurisdiction, as enshrined in the statute, then all subsequent proceedings become non-est in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer Ward-3(1) assessment order passed by Raipur without any valid notice under section 143(2) was to be quashed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) [para 8] followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Dy. CIT (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434/293 Taxman 493/454 ITR 582 (SC) (para 3)
• National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358/229 ITR 383 (SC) (para 5)
• Umanath Pandey v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40 (para 6)
• Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. State of West Bengal (2009) 10 SCC 32 (para 6)
• Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) (para 8).