9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified under Section 124 of the Act or by transferring the case under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. Now, the question is whether the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) New Delhi was valid in law in concluding the assessment proceedings based on the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) who had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice. The issue of valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act; therefore, the assessment made pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial to assme a valid jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of IT Act. Learned CIT(A) turned down the submission of the assessee without looking in to the detail. 3. That the assessment as framed is ab-initio being without jurisdiction as same has been framed without confronting to the assessee any material or evidence received from the DIT (Inv)-I, New Delhi, to show that the assessee has received bogus accommodation entry amounting to ₹ 9,13,710/-. The assessment has been made on complete non application of mind. Learned CIT(A) ignored the reply/rebut of remand report submitted by the assessee. No opportunity for cross examination was given by the CIT(A). 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law by upholding the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi, who vide order dated 1st March 2012 in Appeal No.95/11-12 had dismissed the appeal. It was contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 are invalid in law, inasmuch, as there were no reasons to believe that the assessment got escaped tax. It was further contended that the notice issue u/s 148 was invalid, since the ITO who issued notice u/s 148 had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant. On the merit it was contended that the appellant discharged his onus that lying upon the appellant as the identity and genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender have been proved by filing the PAN and ITR of the creditors, however, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Section 127 of the Act. Now, the question is whether the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) New Delhi was valid in law in concluding the assessment proceedings based on the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) who had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice. The issue of valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act; therefore, the assessment made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
