2019 (9) TMI 40 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were recorded by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(3), New Delhi whereas the return was filed with Income Tax Officer, Ward 39(4), New Delhi with whom the jurisdiction lies - HELD THAT - Reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were recorded by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(3), New Delhi whereas the return was filed with Income Tax Officer, Ward 39(4), New Delhi with whom the jurisdiction lies. Thus as relying on SMT. KAMLESH GOEL VERSUS THE I.T.O, WARD 59 (3) , NEW DELHI 2018 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI assessment order dated 30.03.2015 framed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional error in issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Validity of assessment order framed by a different Assessing Officer.
3. Compliance with legal procedures and timelines in assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdictional error in issuance of notice u/s 148:
The assessee contended that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to a jurisdictional error. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer who issued the notice did not have jurisdiction over the case. Despite the assessee's objections and clear communication regarding the correct jurisdiction, the notice was issued, and assessment proceedings were conducted by a different Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional error was evident as the notice was issued by one Assessing Officer while the assessment was conducted by another, contrary to the jurisdiction where the assessee filed the return.

Issue 2: Validity of assessment order by a different Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal highlighted that the assessment order was framed by an Assessing Officer different from the one with jurisdiction over the assessee's case. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where it was held that the Assessing Officer should have allowed time for the assessee to seek legal remedies after rejecting objections. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order, in this case, was bad in law due to the failure to grant the assessee sufficient time to address objections and seek legal remedies before finalizing the assessment.

Issue 3: Compliance with legal procedures and timelines:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and timelines in assessment proceedings. It noted that the objections raised by the assessee were disposed of without granting adequate time for the assessee to seek further legal recourse. By following the legal principles established in previous judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessment order in question was invalid and should be quashed. The Tribunal's decision was based on ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements in assessment proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, declaring the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 as bad in law and ordering it to be quashed. The judgment underscored the significance of jurisdictional correctness, adherence to legal procedures, and granting sufficient time for the assessee to address objections and seek legal remedies in assessment proceedings.