9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against assessee. - I. T. A. No. 41 of 2013 (O&M), I.T.A. No.42 of 2013 (O&M), I.T.A. No.43 of 2013 (O&M), I.T.A. No.44 of 2013 (O&M), I.T.A. No.132 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 13-12-2013 - Rajive Bhalla And Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon,JJ. For the Appellants : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,Mr. Sunil K; Mukhi, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate ORDER Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J These five appeals arise out from a common order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench H , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal) in ITA Nos.5128 to 5132/Del/2011 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. Following substantial questions of law have been posed in these appeals: A. Whether Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in holding that jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was assumed in accordance with law? B. Whether Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in upholding the reopening though reopening was done by non-jurisdiction assessing officer and the reassessment order was passed by ACIT, Rohtak? C. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n given by her to be correct, the case of re-assessment was transferred on her request to Rohtak. During the course of proceedings, it was the claim of the assessee that Rs.5 lacs each from Manoj Kumar Batra and Vishnu Kumar Jain was received as gift out of love and affection. When the version of the assessee was investigated, it was found that there was no Manoj Kumar Batra at the given address and name as also address were fictitious. So far as another gift from Vishnu Kumar Jain is concerned, it was found that on the relevant date, there was a balance of only Rs.4,60,000/- and making further deposit of little over Rs.40,000/-, cheque of Rs.5 lacs was cleared. It is worth notice that earlier to deposit of Rs.4,60,000/-, his bank balance was only Rs.489/- in the account. However, perusal of copy of his bank account, it was found that making a deposit of Rs.4,60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- separately on 5.12.2002 itself, cheque of Rs.5 lacs was issued on the same date on account of donation and prior to this date, there was balance only of Rs.3125/- as on 14.12.2002. Cheque of Rs.5 lacs was cleared on 5.12.2002 itself. 7. The Assessing Officer had come to a firm finding that donors Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee that she was not residing at the address given in the bank pass book. It is also not her case that the bank account does not pertain to her. Rather, her consistent case is that she had received Rs.10 lacs by way of two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each as donation from the named persons. It also remains a fact that while filing her return for the relevant assessment year, she had neither disclosed details of such alleged gifts nor had furnished details of her bank account at Delhi. Rather, it transpires that there was no information of the fact of her bank account being with Bank of Rajasthan, New Delhi and that her assessing authority was at Rohtak. In short, on finding two entries of Rs.5 lacs each dramatically appearing in her bank account, investigating agency had found that these were accommodation entries. Since, there was no knowledge, information or occasion to note the fact of her being assessed at Rohtak, income tax authorities at Delhi were well within their rights to issue notice under Section 148 after compliance of provisions of Section 147 regarding disclosing of reasons and in issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. 14. The moment it was disclosed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was in these circumstances that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court had affirmed order of the Tribunal which had held that the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana had no jurisdiction over the assessee. 18. Yet another judgment cited by the assessee is Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus Shri Ranjeet Singh in ITA No.1405 of 2008 decided by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi on 30.9.2010. It also does not help the petitioner because it was only land of the assessee which was situated at Ghaziabad; compensation of acquisition of such land was received by the assessee, a resident of Delhi who was assessed at Delhi. It was in these circumstances that notice under Section 148 and 143(3) of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad was not found to be valid in law. For similar reasons, judgment dated 1.9.2008 of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Anil Khosla in ITA No.838/2008 does not help the assessee because facts in the case in hand are different. 19. Facts of the case in hand reveal that the assessee was residing at Delhi where she was operating her bank account in which certain dubious transactions were made, which on investigations w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
