2022 (4) TMI 1118 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice under section 148 has been issued by a non jurisdictional AO - HELD THAT - When it is undisputed fact that jurisdictional AO of the assessee trust is ACIT (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai and jurisdiction has never been changed or transferred to ITO, Bareli, the very initiation of reopening by ITO, Bareli u/s 147/148 of the Act is bad in law. Because under section 120 124 of the Act only ACIT (Exemption), Mumbai is the AO of the assessee trust empowered to frame the assessment, which has never been changed or transferred to ITO, Bareli under section 127 of the Act. It is settled principle of law that when the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by a non jurisdictional AO, the ITO Bareli in this case, reassessment by the jurisdictional AO is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, more particularly when assessment of the assessee has admittedly not been transferred to Bareli under section 127 of the Act. So the assessment framed by the ACIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai on the basis of initiation of reopening under section 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law for lack of jurisdiction being void ab-initio. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional validity of reassessment notice under section 147/148 without issuing notice to the assessee.
2. Validity of notice under section 148 issued by a non-jurisdictional Income Tax Officer.
3. Arbitrary addition of sale proceeds without proper details and opportunity to explain.
4. Denial of exemptions under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Jurisdictional Validity of Reassessment Notice:
The appellant challenged the re-assessment conducted without issuing a notice under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction without proper notice. The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspect, emphasizing that the original assessment was conducted by a different Assessing Officer in Mumbai. The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment by an Income Tax Officer in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, without jurisdiction was invalid. The Tribunal ruled that the assessment framed based on this invalid initiation lacked jurisdiction and was therefore unsustainable.

Issue 2 - Validity of Notice by Non-Jurisdictional Officer:
The Tribunal examined the validity of the notice issued under section 148 by an Income Tax Officer in Bareilly, who did not have jurisdiction over the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdictional authority for the appellant was the ACIT (Exemption) in Mumbai, and no transfer of jurisdiction had occurred. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that when a notice under section 148 is issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, reassessment by the jurisdictional officer is legally flawed. Therefore, the assessment conducted by the ACIT (Exemption) in Mumbai based on the invalid initiation of reassessment was deemed unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction.

Issue 3 - Arbitrary Addition of Sale Proceeds:
The Tribunal addressed the arbitrary addition of ?2,04,08,000 as sale proceeds of properties allegedly belonging to the appellant without proper details and opportunity for explanation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition, leading to the appellant's appeal. However, the Tribunal's focus on jurisdictional issues led to the allowance of the appeal without delving into the merits of the addition. The lack of proper jurisdiction in the reassessment process rendered the entire assessment unsustainable.

Issue 4 - Denial of Exemptions under Section 11:
The appellant contested the denial of exemptions under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, despite making sufficient investments in acquiring another capital asset. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this denial, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was primarily based on the lack of jurisdiction in the reassessment process, rather than delving into the specifics of the exemption denial under section 11.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal due to the lack of jurisdiction in the reassessment process, rendering the entire assessment unsustainable. The decision emphasized the importance of proper jurisdictional authority in conducting reassessments under the Income Tax Act, highlighting the legal principles governing such procedures.

← Previous Next →