9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to be assessed at Delhi and requested for transfer of records at Delhi and accordingly, the case was transferred. Accordingly, the notice u/s.142(1) and 143(2) was issued by the Jurisdictional AO Ward 18(2), New Delhi for the first time on 15.10.2013 and no notice u/s. 148 was ever issued by the jurisdictional AO. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of confirming the validity of assessment made by the ITO, Ward 28(2), New Delhi without service of valid notice under section 148 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3771/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2017 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri S.K. Bansal, CA Department by : Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NIL. Notice u/s.148 dated 12.3.2013 was issued. Notices u/s. 143(2) dated 15.10.2013 and 5.12.2013 were issued. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee attended the hearing from time to time. The assessee company is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of offset printing machine. The assessee raised an objection of validation of notice issued u/s. 148 inter alia on the ground that the AO who has issued the notice u/s.148 was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. The AO who has completed the reassessment did not accept the contention and objection of the assessee and completed the reassessment vide order dated 28.2.2014 passed u/s.143(3)/148 of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) though rejected the objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction which is in dispute is squarely covered by the ITAT, Mumbai decision dated 7.9.2012 passed in Indorama Software Solutions vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 5290/M/2011 (2003-004) Other. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the revenue authorities. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records especially the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. I find considerable cogency in the assessee's counsel submissions that the reassessment order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed because the jurisdictional AO has not issued and served any notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated are illegal, unsustainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is patiently illegal and void. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order in pursuant to the illegal notice u/s.148 are also valid ab initio and liable to be set aside. Hence, we hold that the reassessment on the basis of an illegal notice u/s. 148 is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedent as aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the Jurisdictional AO has not issued any notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act to the assessee, hence, the reassessment order in dispute is invalid, void abnitio and against the provisions of the law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly the same is set aside. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
