9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. 3. The first ground raised by the assessee is as under: That the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the action of Assessing Officer who has wrongly issued the questionnaire dated 3.10.2007 which is bad in law and against the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. In this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2002 declaring total income at ₹ 2,80,736/-. Thereafter, the AO, Jammu received an information that assessee had received interest subsidy in respect of which deduction was claimed. In this light of this information, the AO, Jammu, issued notice u/s 148 on 21.3.2007. Thereafter, the AO, Jammu had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to file proof of filing of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count is not derived from export business, the same is not qualified, in view of the AO, for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The AO, therefore, disallowed the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act with reference to the amount of ₹ 20 lacs credited by the assessee in the profit on accrual basis against interest subsidy. 6. In the light of the above facts, the assessee had taken a ground before the CIT(A) that the AO had wrongly issued the questionnaire dated 3.10.2007, which is bad in law and against the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act. This ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided against the assessee by CIT(A) by observing as under: With regard to first ground of appeal it is observed that reasons have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This disposed of Ground No.1 7. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that AO had issued questionnaire dated 3.10.2007 asking the assessee to justify claim of deduction u/s 80HHC, which is against the reasons recorded for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, as in the reasons recorded the AO has stated that the assessee has wrongly claimed the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the reasons recorded by the AO are not in consonance with the questionnaire issued by the AO subsequently. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no irregularity or illegality in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act inasmuch as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, which is undoubtedly in pursuance to the assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act by ITO, Jammu. Since, in the present case, the jurisdiction over the assessee was lying with ITO, Delhi, he should have issued a fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act after receiving the information from ITO, Jammu instead of proceeding directly to complete the assessment by issuing notice u/s 143(2) on 30.8.2007. Since the notice u/s 148 issued by ITO, Jammu is without jurisdiction inasmuch as ITO, Jammu had no jurisdiction to assess the present assessee, the very assessment completed by the AO, New Delhi, on the basis of the notice issued u/s 148 by the AO, Jammu would invariably be without jurisdiction inasmuch as no valid proceedings u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
