2015 (6) TMI 1142 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of notice after case being transferred - Reopening of assessment - file transferred by ITO Ward-26(4) to ITO Ward - 26(3) noticing jurisdiction over the appellant - Held that - ITO Ward-26(3), New Delhi had proceeded with the framing assessment without issuing fresh notice u/s 148. It means that ITO Ward-26(4), New Delhi had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified under Section 124 of the Act or by transferring the case under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. Now, the question is whether the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) New Delhi was valid in law in concluding the assessment proceedings based on the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) who had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice. The issue of valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act; therefore, the assessment made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. Thus no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment order framed under sections 144/147 of the IT Act.
2. Jurisdictional validity of notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings.
4. Applicability of section 68 of the IT Act in the absence of maintaining books of accounts.
5. Adherence to principles of natural justice in granting a fair opportunity to the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order under sections 144/147 of the IT Act
The appellant challenged the assessment order framed by the assessing officer under sections 144/147 of the IT Act, contending that the income determined was significantly higher than the income returned. The appellant argued that the addition made on account of unexplained and bogus gift was unwarranted. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi. However, the ITAT, Delhi, upon review, found that the assessment was made without valid jurisdiction due to the notice issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction over the appellant. Citing legal precedents, the ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of a valid notice for assessment under Section 147 of the Act.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional validity of notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act
The appellant raised concerns regarding the jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act. It was argued that the assessing officer who issued the notice lacked jurisdiction over the appellant. The ITAT, Delhi, observed that the notice issued by the officer without valid jurisdiction was non est in the eyes of the law. Referring to established legal principles, the ITAT held that the absence of valid jurisdiction renders the assessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional validity in assessment proceedings.

Issue 3: Compliance with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings
The appellant contended that the assessment was conducted without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity for cross-examination was provided by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT focused primarily on the jurisdictional aspect of the case and quashed the reassessment proceedings based on the lack of a valid notice. As a result, the issue of compliance with natural justice principles was not extensively addressed in the judgment.

Issue 4: Applicability of section 68 of the IT Act in the absence of maintaining books of accounts
The appellant argued that the impugned addition under section 68 of the IT Act was unjustified since the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts. The ITAT did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on the jurisdictional validity of the notice and subsequent assessment proceedings. Consequently, the ITAT did not provide a detailed analysis of the applicability of section 68 in the absence of maintained books of accounts.

Issue 5: Adherence to principles of natural justice in granting a fair opportunity to the assessee
While the appellant raised concerns about the lack of a fair, proper, and reasonable opportunity granted during the assessment, the ITAT's decision primarily revolved around the jurisdictional defects in the notice and subsequent assessment proceedings. The ITAT's ruling to quash the reassessment proceedings was based on the foundational requirement of a valid notice for initiating assessments under Section 147 of the IT Act, rather than the procedural aspects related to the opportunity provided to the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT, Delhi, allowed the appeal by quashing the reassessment proceedings due to the lack of a valid notice, emphasizing the fundamental importance of jurisdictional validity in assessment proceedings under the IT Act.

← Previous Next →