9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 426 - AT - Income TaxReassessment proceedings by by a non-jurisdictional AO - ITO, Ward-3 (4), Ludhiana jurisdiction over Assessee NRI - HELD THAT - As the assessee is a non-resident as per the facts stated above by the ld. Counsel and the documents submitted before us for Assessment Year 2011-12. It is also a fact that the assessee is a citizen of USA and is holding American Passport and notice u/s 148 was issued by the non-jurisdictional ITO, no hesitation in holding that the AO Ward-3(4), Ludhiana did not have valid jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148, since it was in the knowledge of the department earlier that the assessee was a non-resident and, even the return for AY 2011-12, had been filed, earlier to the notice issued u/s 148 for the year under consideration and the AO, International Tax had proceeded with the framing of the assessment without issuing fresh notice u/s 148 and, thus, the assessment as framed by the AO, International Tax, is bad in law. Thus no hesitation in holding that since the assessment has been framed by the AO of International Tax on the basis of notice u/s 148 issued by the non-jurisdictional AO, Ward-3(4), Ludhiana, the assessment as framed by the AO of International Tax is quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 2. Whether the approval for the notice under Section 148 was given in a mechanical manner. 3. Delay in filing Cross Objections by the Assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer: The primary issue in this case was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Assessee argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(4), Ludhiana, who did not have jurisdiction over the Assessee, a non-resident Indian (NRI). The Assessee's status as a non-resident was known to the department, as evidenced by previous filings and documentation, including a U.S. passport. The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. ITO, where it was held that a notice issued by an officer without valid jurisdiction is non-est in law. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessment framed by the AO of International Tax, Chandigarh, based on the notice issued by the non-jurisdictional AO, was void ab initio and quashed the assessment. 2. Whether the approval for the notice under Section 148 was given in a mechanical manner: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in considering the approval for the notice under Section 148 as mechanical. The approval was given by the Pr. CIT with the inference that the case was fit for the issue of notice due to unexplained cash deposits. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the notice was issued without adequate material or investigation, indicating non-application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not pass a speaking order on the objections raised by the Assessee, which contravened legal principles, thereby supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment. 3. Delay in filing Cross Objections by the Assessee: The Assessee filed Cross Objections with a delay of 57 days. The Tribunal considered the reasons and explanations provided by the Assessee, supported by an affidavit, and decided to condone the delay. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the case on merits, acknowledging the Assessee's arguments regarding the jurisdictional issue and ultimately allowing the Cross Objections on legal grounds. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the Assessee's Cross Objections on the legal issue of jurisdiction. It concluded that the assessment framed by the AO of International Tax, based on a notice issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, was invalid. Consequently, the other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated as they were rendered academic due to the relief granted on the jurisdictional issue. The order was pronounced on 15.10.2024.
|
