9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1175 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - jurisdiction and authority of the Assessing Officer who passed reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 - whether the learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax who passed the reassessment order dated March 20, 2015 is vested with jurisdiction and authority to pass such order in absence of proper order under section 120(4)(b)? - HELD THAT - Revenue has failed to file any order passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax/Chief Commissioner of Income-tax/Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, under section 120(4)(b), authorising the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax to act as an Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee. We further noted that although the Revenue filed copy of the Board's general notification authorising Joint Commissioner of Income-tax/ Additional Commissioner of Income-tax to act as an Assessing Officer, but failed to file the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax under section 120(4)(b) of the Act, empowering the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax to act as an Assessing Officer. We further noted that although, the Revenue has filed order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-17, Mumbai passed under section 120(1) and (2) of the Act, but said order is not under section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the reassessment order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax-Range17, Mumbai is void ab initio and liable to be quashed, because, the Assessing Officer who had passed reassessment order does not had valid jurisdiction and authority to pass such order, in absence of proper order in writing under section 120(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reassessment order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-17, Mumbai is void ab initio and liable to be quashed, because the Assessing Officer who had passed the assessment order does not possesses valid authority and jurisdiction to pass such order in absence of separate order under section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Case followed M/S. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD., (FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,) VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 (3) , MUMBAI AND VICE-VERSA 2019 (8) TMI 1446 - ITAT MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notice under Section 148. 2. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147. 3. Addition of ?14,75,59,256 as Peak Balance. 4. Authentication of Bank Statements. 5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 120(4)(b). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice under Section 148: The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible period of four years and violated the mandatory conditions of Section 151. The Tribunal found that the notice was indeed issued beyond the statutory period, rendering it invalid. 2. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The assessee argued that the reopening of the assessment was based on unverified information regarding undisclosed bank accounts with HSBC Bank Geneva. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on information received from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Inv), Unit-III(3), Mumbai, which alleged undisclosed bank accounts. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate ownership of the alleged accounts by the assessee or his family members, thus questioning the validity of the reopening. 3. Addition of ?14,75,59,256 as Peak Balance: The Tribunal examined the addition of ?14,75,59,256 as the peak balance in the alleged HSBC Bank Geneva accounts. The assessee contended that the Department failed to provide authenticated bank statements. The Tribunal found that the Department's failure to furnish authenticated statements and reliance on its determination of the peak balance without concrete evidence was unjustified. 4. Authentication of Bank Statements: The assessee argued that the Department did not provide authenticated bank statements of the alleged accounts, forcing the assessee to pay tax and interest based on unauthenticated data. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the Department's inability to provide authenticated statements undermined the credibility of the additions made. 5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 120(4)(b): The Tribunal considered whether the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax had the authority to pass the reassessment order without a proper order under Section 120(4)(b). The Tribunal noted that the definition of an "Assessing Officer" under Section 2(7A) includes Joint Commissioners only if directed under Section 120(4)(b). The Tribunal found that the Department failed to produce any specific order under Section 120(4)(b) authorizing the Joint Commissioner to act as an Assessing Officer. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed void ab initio due to the lack of jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders for both assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, citing the lack of jurisdiction and authority of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax to pass the reassessment orders. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the assessee as infructuous, given the quashing of the reassessment orders on jurisdictional grounds. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
|
