2014 (1) TMI 299 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction u/s 147 - Held that - Income tax authorities were unaware of the fact that the assessee is being assessed with authorities at Rohtak and not Delhi - income tax authorities at Delhi were well within their rights to issue notice under Section 148 after compliance of provisions of Section 147 regarding disclosing of reasons and in issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act - The moment it was disclosed by the assessee that she was being assessed to income tax at Rohtak and had furnished particulars thereof, on her request, the matter was transferred to Rohtak. Whether notice under Section 148 as also Section 142(1) of the Act was to be re-issued by the Assessing Officer at Rohtak - Held that - Though judicial consistency is always aspired for and should be maintained, merely because the impugned order is inconsistent with an order rendered by another Bench of the Tribunal, sanctity would not be lent to the said another order and the said order by no means would be taken to be eclipsing the validity and legality of the impugned verdict - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the reopening of assessment by a non-jurisdictional assessing officer.
3. Principle of judicial consistency.
4. Appreciation of evidence and adherence to legal provisions by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was assumed in accordance with law. The assessee maintained a bank account in New Delhi, and upon discovering dubious transactions, the Income Tax authorities in Delhi issued a notice under Section 148 after complying with Section 147's requirements. The assessee argued that the authorities in Delhi lacked jurisdiction since she was assessed in Rohtak. However, the court found that since the assessee resided in Delhi and had a bank account there, the Delhi authorities were competent to issue the notice. The case was transferred to Rohtak upon the assessee's request, but this did not invalidate the initial jurisdiction assumed by the Delhi authorities.

2. Validity of the reopening of assessment by a non-jurisdictional assessing officer:
The assessee contended that the reopening was invalid as it was done by a non-jurisdictional assessing officer. The court held that the initial notices were validly issued by the Delhi authorities, who had jurisdiction based on the assessee's residence and bank account location. The subsequent transfer to Rohtak did not necessitate the reissuance of notices under Sections 148 and 142(1) by the Rohtak officer. The court emphasized that the Delhi authorities' actions were within their rights and complied with the legal requirements.

3. Principle of judicial consistency:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order was inconsistent with its own previous orders and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in similar cases, thus violating the principle of judicial consistency. The court acknowledged that while judicial consistency is desirable, the mere inconsistency of the impugned order with another Tribunal order does not invalidate it. The court distinguished the facts of the present case from those cited by the assessee, noting that the circumstances were different and did not support the assessee's claims.

4. Appreciation of evidence and adherence to legal provisions by the Tribunal:
The assessee claimed that the Tribunal's order was perverse as it failed to appreciate the evidence and pleadings properly and contravened legal provisions. The court found no factual or legal error in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had considered the evidence, including the dubious nature of the transactions and the fictitious nature of the donors. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the entries were accommodation entries and constituted undisclosed income. The Tribunal's decision to treat the Rs.10 lacs as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and charge it to income tax was affirmed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all five appeals, finding no merit in the assessee's arguments. The initial jurisdiction assumed by the Delhi authorities was upheld, and the subsequent transfer to Rohtak did not invalidate the proceedings. The principle of judicial consistency did not render the Tribunal's order invalid, and the appreciation of evidence and adherence to legal provisions by the Tribunal were found to be proper.