2014 (1) TMI 1791 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - AO Srinagar had issued notice under s. 148 on 23rd Jan. 2008 without obtaining the approval from the Addl. CIT which approval in fact was taken vide letter No. 1147 dt. 30th March 2009 which is evident from p. 1 of AO s order as reproduced hereinabove. As per s. 151(2) no notice under s. 148(1) can be issued by an AO who is below the rank of Jt. CIT after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Jt. CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. In the present case such satisfaction of Jt. CIT/Addl. GIT was taken only on 30th March 2009 whereas notice under s. 148 was issued on 23rd Jan. 2008 which is prior to the said satisfaction or approval of Jt./Addl. CIT. Therefore on this account the notice issued under s. 148 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Therefore the reassessment proceedings initiated are directed to be quashed. Accordingly ground of the assessee is allowed. Jurisdiction of the case lies at New Delhi and not at Srinagar and accordingly present assessment cannot be made by the AO Srinagar and the same is therefore held to be invalid.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO).
2. Validity of the assessment order due to lack of proper approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Jt. CIT).
3. Non-consideration of financial statements and other submissions by the CIT(A).
4. Justification of the addition of Rs. 24,27,518 as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Lack of Jurisdiction by the AO
The assessee argued that the AO in Srinagar did not have jurisdiction over their case as they had been residing in Ghaziabad, UP, since 1994-95 and had been filing returns in Delhi. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that jurisdiction is generally decided by the place of residence and the assessee had a residence and a bank account in Srinagar. The Tribunal, however, found that the jurisdiction should lie with the AO in Delhi, as the assessee had been filing returns there since the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT vs. Aar Bee Industries, which held that there could be only one AO in respect of a case, and the jurisdiction should be determined by the situs of the AO at the time the appeal was filed. Thus, the assessment by the AO in Srinagar was deemed invalid.

Issue 2: Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Lack of Proper Approval from the Jt. CIT
The assessee contended that the AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 without obtaining proper approval from the Jt. CIT. The CIT(A) dismissed this claim, stating that approval obtained on the last date of the time-barring month was valid. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had issued a notice under Section 148 on 23rd January 2008 without obtaining the necessary approval from the Jt. CIT, which was only obtained on 30th March 2009. According to Section 151(2), no notice under Section 148 can be issued without the satisfaction of the Jt. CIT. Therefore, the notice issued was deemed bad in law, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

Issue 3: Non-consideration of Financial Statements and Other Submissions by the CIT(A)
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider their financial statements, balance sheets, and other documents. The CIT(A) and the AO maintained that the assessee did not provide sufficient explanations for the credits in their bank account. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had emphasized jurisdiction and service of notice issues but did not address the merits of the case. Since the reassessment proceedings were quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue.

Issue 4: Justification of the Addition of Rs. 24,27,518 as Unexplained Income Under Section 69A
The AO added Rs. 24,27,518 as unexplained income under Section 69A, citing non-cooperation from the assessee in explaining the source of the deposits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. However, the Tribunal, having quashed the reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional and procedural grounds, directed that this addition be deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction by the AO in Srinagar and improper approval for the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 24,27,518 as unexplained income was also deleted.