2018 (4) TMI 692 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - ITO at Ghaziabad jurisdiction over the matter - Held that - The mere factum of the agreement found by the DDIT (Inv.), Ghaziabad having been forwarded by him to the AO at Ghaziabad cannot confer jurisdiction on the AO at Ghaziabad, when the assessee has always been and remains assessed at Agra. The fact that the assessee remained posted as Chief Engineer, Ghaziabad and had been residing in Ghaziabad, again, cannot confer jurisdiction on the AO at Ghaziabad to issue notice under sections 147/148 of the IT Act, when undisputedly and admittedly, the assessee has never been assessed at Ghaziabad and he has always been and continues to be assessed at Agra. Apropos the observation that the AO at Ghaziabad would have jurisdiction over the matter under section 124(1) of the Act, this observation gets nullified by the very next observation, i.e., the assessment has been completed by the AO in Agra. The grievance of the assessee in this regard is found justified and it is accepted as such - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to initiate reassessment proceedings.
2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Legality of the reassessment proceedings.
4. Consideration of judicial pronouncements in favor of the appellant.
5. Addition of alleged advance and interest.
6. Addition of other amounts without evidence.
7. Imposition of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to Initiate Reassessment Proceedings:
The primary contention was that the ITO 2(3) Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The appellant argued that he had always been assessed at Agra and never filed returns in Ghaziabad. The CIT(A) noted that the reassessment was based on specific information from DDI(Inv.)-1, Ghaziabad, regarding an agreement involving the appellant, which mentioned an advance of ?8,00,000 at an interest rate of 2%. The CIT(A) held that since the appellant's address in the agreement was Ghaziabad, the ITO Ghaziabad had jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal found that the ITO Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction as the appellant had always been assessed at Agra. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in 'CIT vs. Kurban Hussain' and other case laws to support that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiescence and must be legally mandated.

2. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant contended that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served. The CIT(A) observed that the notice was issued based on the appellant's Ghaziabad address as per the notarized agreement. The Tribunal, however, concluded that since the appellant was always assessed at Agra, the notice issued by the ITO Ghaziabad was invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that a valid notice is crucial for jurisdiction, and any notice issued without proper jurisdiction renders the entire proceedings void.

3. Legality of the Reassessment Proceedings:
The reassessment proceedings were challenged on the grounds of being improper and illegal. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was initiated by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the appellant's case. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents to assert that reassessment proceedings initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio.

4. Consideration of Judicial Pronouncements in Favor of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that judicial pronouncements in his favor were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implicitly acknowledged the appellant's contention by relying on relevant case laws that supported the appellant's arguments regarding jurisdiction and validity of notice.

5. Addition of Alleged Advance and Interest:
The appellant disputed the addition of ?8,00,000 as an advance given along with interest. The CIT(A) justified the addition based on the agreement found during the investigation. However, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the entire reassessment due to jurisdictional issues rendered this specific addition moot.

6. Addition of Other Amounts Without Evidence:
The appellant contested the addition of ?4,124, arguing there was no evidence against him. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue separately, as the cancellation of the reassessment covered all additions made during the reassessment.

7. Imposition of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The appellant challenged the imposition of interest under various sections as being wrong and illegal. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the reassessment proceedings inherently nullified the imposition of such interest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the ITO 2(3) Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings against the appellant, who had always been assessed at Agra. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid, and the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, canceling the assessments for both years under consideration. The order was pronounced in the open court on 19/03/2018.

← Previous Next →