2021 (12) TMI 1126 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Valid jurisdiction of ITO Ghaziabad to issue notice - Successor AO power in issuing the notice - AO recorded reasons for reassessment is different from AO who issued a notice u/s 148 - whether the reassessment framed by the AO i.e ITO, Hapur in pursuance to a notice dated 31.03.2016 u/s 148 of the Act, issued by Income-tax Officer, Ghaziabad who did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, is valid one? - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that Assessee is filing the return of income before ITO, Hapur and the ITO, Hapur had jurisdiction over the assessee. The ITO, Ghaziabad who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of AIR/NMS information about cash deposits by the Assessee. Subsequently, ITO Ghaziabad vide letter dated 25.07.2016 transferred the records to ITO, Hapur as the jurisdiction over the assessee was with ITO, Hapur. Thereafter, ITO, Hapur proceeded to complete the assessment without even recording reasons to believe stipulated in section 147 or issuing any notice u/s 148 of the Act and continued the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 vide order dated 31.08.2016 on the basis of reasons recorded by ITO, Ghaziabad. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hynoup Food Oil Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 2008 (7) TMI 192 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has observed that AO recorded reasons for reassessment and AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act must be the same person. Successor AO cannot issue notice u/s 148 on the basis of reasons recorded by predecessor AO - in view of the well-settled principle that if a notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act being available to the AO, the notice and the subsequent proceedings will be without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be struck down. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings based on jurisdiction of the assessing officer.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The case involved the assessee, an individual, who had deposited a significant amount in her bank account based on information from AIR/NMS. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, leading to scrutiny and assessment resulting in a higher total income determination. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A), leading to the current appeal.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee included challenges to the order of the CIT(A) regarding the treatment of the amount realized from the sale of agricultural land, the classification of the land as residential property, and the handling of additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Additional grounds challenged the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the validity of reassessment proceedings.

3. The issue of the validity of reassessment proceedings was extensively discussed. The assessing officer in Ghaziabad, who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, issued a notice under section 148 based on information about cash deposits. Subsequently, the case records were transferred to the assessing officer in Hapur, who proceeded with the assessment without recording reasons to believe or issuing a notice under section 148. The tribunal referenced legal precedents stating that the AO who records reasons and issues a notice under section 148 must be the same person, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional foundation for reassessment proceedings.

4. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and established legal principles, the tribunal concluded that if a notice under section 148 is issued without the necessary jurisdictional foundation, the proceedings are without jurisdiction and should be struck down. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. As a result of quashing the reassessment, other grounds raised on merits required no further adjudication.

5. The tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment order was based on the lack of jurisdictional foundation for the reassessment proceedings, highlighting the importance of the assessing officer having the requisite jurisdiction over the case. The decision provided clarity on the legal principles governing reassessment proceedings and emphasized the need for strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements in such matters.

6. The tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents demonstrated a thorough consideration of the jurisdictional issues raised in the appeal, ultimately leading to the decision to quash the reassessment order and allow the appeal of the assessee. The judgment underscored the significance of jurisdictional integrity in income tax proceedings and upheld the principles of due process and legal validity in assessing income tax liabilities.