Minimax Commerce (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 303 (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order passed by the Assessing Officer of a different jurisdiction-Assessment order was passed on basis of an invalid and non est notice, it could not be countenanced in law, and consequently, revisional action is not permissible hence not valid. [S. 127, 143(2), 143(3), 292BB]

Assessment order was passed by Assessing Officer, Raipur whereby return of income filed by assessee showing loss was assessed without any adjustment. Revision order was passed  on ground that Assessing Officer had failed to carry out necessary verification and he was directed to conduct necessary inquiries.  On appeal, assessee challenged said order on ground that assessment order was illegal as Assessing Officer who passed assessment order at Raipur did not issue notice under section 143(2) prior to assessment. It was found that assessment was made by Assessing Officer, Raipur on foundation of section 143(2) notice issued by Assessing Officer, Kolkata and said proceedings under section 143(2) were dropped by Assessing Officer, Kolkata and thereafter an order under section 127(2)(a) was passed whereby jurisdiction over assessee was transferred from AO, Kolkata to Assessing Officer, Raipur. Tribunal held that since assessment order was passed on basis of an invalid and non est notice, it could not be countenanced in law, and consequently, revisional action under section 263 was not permissible. (AY. 2017-18)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*