2012 (10) TMI 846 - AT - Income Tax

Jurisdiction of AO in framing assessment - No notice u/s. 148 issued by the AO having jurisdiction over the case - Assessment quashed by CIT(A) - Held that - The assessee s address was obtained from the bank records in which the assessee has given address of Delhi and on the same address the notice u/s. 148 was issued followed by notice u/s. 142(1). In response to that notice assessee appeared before the ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi and requested that assessee s case is being assessed with ITO, Ward-I, Rohtak and requested to transfer the records to ITO, Rohtak from New Delhi. Thus, there is no case for assessee to have any grievance in this case as assessee was issued notice u/s. 148 at an address given to the bank by the assessee himself. Thus it can not be said that assessee s case was reopened and assessed without assuming proper jurisdiction - As assessee never challenged the address at New Delhi in these circumstances CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment, on the ground that proper jurisdiction was not obtained by the AO. Assessment in this case cannot be said to have been framed without assuming proper jurisdiction as the notice was very much issued at the address given by the assessee himself in the bank account - matter is being remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the merits of the case and pass a speaking order - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Common issue in Revenue appeals regarding quashing of assessment due to jurisdictional matters.

Analysis:
The appeals by the Revenue were against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) for five separate assesses for the assessment year 2003-04. The issue raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the validity of the assessment due to the notice issued under section 148. The Department conducted investigations uncovering accommodation entry providers involved in providing bogus entries. The assessment of the assessee was reopened under section 147 based on this information. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) quashed the assessment, citing jurisdictional issues as the notice under section 148 was issued by an Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction over the case. The Ld. Commissioner held that the assessment was invalid, leading to the redundancy of issues on merits.

Upon the Revenue's appeal, the Departmental Representative argued that the assessee participated in the proceedings and the case was transferred from New Delhi to Rohtak at the assessee's request. The Departmental Representative contended that the Assessing Officers in Delhi and Rohtak had concurrent jurisdiction. On the other hand, the counsel of the assessee supported the Ld. Commissioner's decision, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal considered the facts where the notice was issued at the address provided by the assessee in the bank records. The Tribunal found that the notice was validly issued at the given address, and the subsequent transfer of the case to Rohtak was done at the request of the assessee, indicating proper jurisdiction.

The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the cited case laws, emphasizing that the notice was issued at the address provided by the assessee, and the subsequent assessment proceedings were conducted in Rohtak upon the assessee's request. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was not framed without proper jurisdiction and set aside the Ld. Commissioner's order. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. Commissioner to consider the merits of the case and pass a detailed order. Consequently, all five appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.