9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1348 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice by ITO being without jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Admittedly, no notice was issued by the concerned ITO-Ward-50(4) to the assessee before proceeding to frame the assessment. Any notice issued by ITO, Ward-37(4) being without jurisdiction has no legal sanctity. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs ITO 2015 (6) TMI 1142 - ITAT, DELHI Thus the assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-50(4) being bad in law for want of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is hereby quashed and consequential addition stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to re-assessment proceedings, Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer, Validity of additions under section 69A, Cross confrontation of evidence, Presumption of facts, Treatment of online share purchase, Invocation of section 115BBE for AY 2011-12. 1. Challenge to Re-assessment Proceedings: The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment for AY 2011-12. The assessee challenged the re-assessment proceedings, jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame the assessment, and the additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the assessment order was invalid as the notice under section 148 was not issued by the concerned Assessing Officer. 2. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer: The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the AO who framed the assessment order, pointing out that the notice under section 148 was issued by a different Assessing Officer than the one who passed the assessment order. The appellant argued that the assessment order was not valid as the Assessing Officer who issued the order did not have the jurisdiction to do so. The Tribunal relied on a precedent where it was held that an assessment made without a valid notice from the proper jurisdictional Assessing Officer is bad in law. 3. Validity of Additions under Section 69A: The appellant raised concerns about the additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue as the assessment itself was quashed due to jurisdictional issues. 4. Cross Confrontation of Evidence: The appellant contended that the additions were upheld without providing cross confrontation on the evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the judgment as the assessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds. 5. Presumption of Facts: The appellant argued that the facts and figures presumed by the authorities were incorrect and irrelevant compared to the actual facts presented by the assessee. This issue was not directly addressed in the judgment as the assessment was invalidated due to jurisdictional defects. 6. Treatment of Online Share Purchase: The appellant disputed the treatment of online share purchases as offline preferential purchases converted to a Demat account. However, this issue was not discussed in detail in the judgment as the assessment itself was set aside. 7. Invocation of Section 115BBE for AY 2011-12: The appellant challenged the invocation of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. This issue was not explicitly addressed in the judgment as the entire assessment was quashed based on the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice under section 148. In conclusion, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to the absence of a valid notice under section 148 issued by the proper jurisdictional Assessing Officer. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the consequential additions were deleted.
|
