9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 508 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - recording of reasons by non jurisdictional AO - HELD THAT - Reasons have been recorded by non jurisdictional Assessing Officer but notice was issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Here in this case, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not recorded the reasons as mandated in Section 148 (2). Thus, it can be clearly inferred that the notice u/s. 148(1) has been issued without recording the reasons, because reason recorded by non jurisdictional Assessing Officer cannot give jurisdiction to the present Assessing Officer. The same principle of the Hon ble High Court 2019 (6) TMI 799 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT will apply in the present case also. Hence, on this ground alone, we hold that the proceeding u/s.147/148 is void ab initio and without jurisdiction and same is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 147/148. 2. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 147/148. 3. Adjudication of objections against reopening proceedings. 4. Validity of approval under Section 151. 5. Addition under Section 68 for share application money. 6. Addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure. 7. Charging of interest under Section 234A/B/C. Detailed Analysis 1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 147/148 The assessee contended that the proceedings under Sections 147/148 were initiated and completed based on reasons recorded by an Assessing Officer (A.O.) who did not have jurisdiction. The correct jurisdiction lay with ITO, Ward-10(4), but the reasons were recorded by ITO, Ward-10(1). The Tribunal noted that the correct jurisdiction of the assessee was with ITO, Ward-10(4), as per the PAN details and previous returns filed. The reasons for reopening were recorded by ITO, Ward-10(1), and the approval under Section 151 was also sought based on these reasons. The notice under Section 148 was issued by ITO, Ward-10(4). The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening must be recorded by the jurisdictional A.O., and since this was not done, the proceedings were without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 2. Validity of Proceedings Initiated under Section 147/148 The Tribunal observed that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 by a non-jurisdictional A.O. and the subsequent issuance of notice under Section 148 by the jurisdictional A.O. was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pankaj Bhai Jayshuklal Shah vs. CIT, which held that the notice under Section 148 must be issued by the A.O. who records the reasons for reopening. Since the reasons were recorded by a non-jurisdictional A.O., the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment were invalid. 3. Adjudication of Objections Against Reopening Proceedings The assessee argued that the A.O. failed to adjudicate all objections against the reopening proceedings as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Drive Shafts. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary ground of jurisdiction was sufficient to quash the proceedings. 4. Validity of Approval under Section 151 The approval under Section 151 was given based on reasons recorded by ITO, Ward-10(1), who did not have jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that such approval was defective and mechanical, and hence, the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction and illegal. 5. Addition under Section 68 for Share Application Money The assessee challenged the addition of ?62,00,000 under Section 68 for alleged share application money received from four companies. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this addition, as the primary issue of jurisdiction rendered the proceedings void ab initio. 6. Addition under Section 69C for Unexplained Expenditure The addition of ?1,24,000 under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure was also challenged. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as the primary ground of jurisdiction was sufficient to quash the proceedings. 7. Charging of Interest under Section 234A/B/C The assessee contended that no interest should be charged under Section 234A/B/C and that the calculations were erroneous and excessive. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the primary ground of jurisdiction rendered the proceedings void ab initio. Conclusion The Tribunal quashed the proceedings under Sections 147/148 on the ground that the reasons for reopening were recorded by a non-jurisdictional A.O., making the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order invalid. All other issues raised were rendered academic and infructuous due to the primary issue of jurisdiction. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
