2022 (12) TMI 1218 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice to be issued by the non-jurisdictional ITO - transfer of case from ITO to the other - HELD THAT - The concerned jurisdictional ITO, before framing the assessment did not issue notice u/s 148 which was sine qua non to assume jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment proceedings. thus case has not been transferred with the sanction of the Competent Authority as provided u/s 127 of the Act . Concerned ITO, Ward-4(5) without getting sanction from the competent authority himself transferred it to ITO Ward-3(5) and since the ITO, Ward-3(5) neither recorded reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment nor he issued notice u/s 148 therefore, the assessment framed by him was bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision in the case of Pankajbhai Jay Sukh Lal Shah 2019 (6) TMI 799 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . In view of this, the assessment order framed by the ITO, Ward-4(5) being bad in law is hereby quashed. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdictional concerns regarding assessment order.
3. Treatment of cash deposit as unexplained.
4. Legal grounds challenging the assessment order.

Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The appeal raised concerns about the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional ITO, which was not authorized to do so. Although the assessment order was eventually passed by the jurisdictional ITO, it was contended that the mandatory issuance of notice by the jurisdictional AO was not fulfilled, rendering the assessment invalid. The appellant's position was supported by the fact that the case was not transferred with the required sanction, as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal, citing relevant legal precedents, ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the assessment order due to the procedural irregularities in the issuance of the notice.

Jurisdictional Concerns Regarding Assessment Order:
The jurisdictional concerns regarding the assessment order stemmed from the mismatch between the ITO who issued the notice under section 148 and the one who ultimately framed the assessment. The appellant argued that the assessment was invalid as the jurisdictional ITO did not issue the requisite notice, which was essential to assume jurisdiction over the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements for jurisdictional purposes. The assessment order was deemed invalid due to the failure to follow the prescribed procedures, leading to its quashing by the Tribunal.

Treatment of Cash Deposit as Unexplained:
One of the grounds of appeal challenged the treatment of a cash deposit as unexplained under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the cash deposit in question was part of business receipts used to make payments to creditors for grocery items purchased. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue extensively due to the primary focus on the jurisdictional and procedural irregularities. Consequently, the treatment of the cash deposit as unexplained was not the central point of contention in the judgment.

Legal Grounds Challenging the Assessment Order:
The appellant raised various legal grounds challenging the assessment order, including the lack of mention of sections for additions and the timing of notices issued in response to different sections. These grounds were considered by the Tribunal, but the primary focus remained on the jurisdictional and procedural aspects of the case. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground related to the absence of a notice under section 148 from the AO who framed the assessment order, ultimately leading to the quashing of the assessment due to jurisdictional deficiencies.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the jurisdictional and procedural flaws in the assessment process, particularly the invalid issuance of the notice under section 148 by a non-jurisdictional ITO. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to procedural requirements for jurisdictional purposes in income tax assessments, ultimately leading to the quashing of the assessment order in this case.