2015 (3) TMI 488 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - assessee trust AOP has infringed the provisions by advancing a sum of ₹ 3,05,00,000/- to the persons alleged to be the persons specified in sub Section 3 of Section 13 of IT Act - Reasons recorded and notice for reopening u/s.148 were issued by ITO, Ward-5(1), Baroda, but the assessment was made u/s.144/148 by ITO, Ward-2(3), Baroda - Held that - According to us it is not possible that for one particular territorial jurisdiction two Revenue Officers could have the jurisdiction to assess those tax payers. Out of these two conflicting jurisdiction charts only one should be correct. When we have raised this question during the course of hearing then a probability was expressed that the period of implementation of the jurisdiction chart could be different. However, specific period of implementation of the jurisdiction was not informed to us. We, therefore, consider it necessary that the authenticity of the jurisdiction chart as relied upon by the Assessee should be verified. Side by side the details in respect of jurisdiction as furnished by learned DR can also be verified from the record available with the Revenue Department. Since, before us two contradicting statements have been made about the area of jurisdiction and the name of the Assessing Officer of this Assessee, therefore, this contradiction can be resolved by examining the office records of the Revenue Department. This exercise can be undertaken by learned CIT(A) by summoning the jurisdiction recorded of the Revenue Department. - All the Appeals either filed by the assessee or by the Revenue Department may be treated as allowed but for statistical purpose only.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of jurisdiction invoked under Section 148 of the IT Act.
2. Reopening of assessment under Section 147/148.
3. Quantum addition after rejecting the exemption claim.
4. Proceedings under Section 154.
5. Proceedings under Section 263.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Jurisdiction Invoked under Section 148 of the IT Act:
The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148 by ITO, Ward-5(1), Baroda. The CIT(A) rejected the appellant's contention, noting that the appellant did not challenge the jurisdiction until the assessment was finalized. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant was not entitled to question the jurisdiction as per Section 124 of the IT Act. The Revenue argued that the restructuring of the department led to the jurisdiction change, and the notice was validly issued by the competent authority. The Tribunal emphasized the need to verify the authenticity of the jurisdiction chart provided by the appellant and the Revenue Department's records to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.

2. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147/148:
The appellant argued that the reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded by ITO, Ward-5(1), Baroda, but the assessment was completed by ITO, Ward-2(3), Baroda. The Revenue explained that the restructuring led to the transfer of the case to the territorial jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-2(3), Baroda. The Tribunal noted the conflicting jurisdiction charts and directed the CIT(A) to verify the authenticity of the jurisdiction records and determine if the reopening and assessment were conducted by the appropriate officer.

3. Quantum Addition after Rejecting the Exemption Claim:
The Revenue held that the trust advanced funds to persons specified under Section 13(3), violating Section 13(2)(a), and thus, the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was denied. The Tribunal refrained from deciding on the merits of the quantum addition, citing the Special Bench decision in Rahul Kumar Bajaj, which stated that if the order under Section 147/148 is invalid, there is no need to decide the merits of the case.

4. Proceedings under Section 154:
The Tribunal noted that the proceedings under Section 154 were consequential to the reopening issue. Since the reopening issue was restored to the CIT(A), the Section 154 proceedings would also be decided accordingly.

5. Proceedings under Section 263:
Similar to the Section 154 proceedings, the Tribunal held that the Section 263 proceedings were consequential to the reopening issue. The resolution of the jurisdictional question would determine the outcome of the Section 263 proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to verify the jurisdiction records and resolve the validity of the order under Section 147/148. The Tribunal refrained from deciding the merits of the case until the jurisdictional issue was resolved. All appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes only.