9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 19-3-2018 - SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri S. N. Bansal, Advocate. For The Respondent : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are assessee s appeals for Assessment Year 2005-06 2006-07 common issues being involved therein, they are being disposed of by this composite order. Facts for convenience, are being taken from ITA No.224/Agra/2016. 2. The following grounds have been raised: 1. Because the assessment as made by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)-l Agra is wrong on facts and in law. The reasons given in doing so are wrong, improper, unjustified and are based on mere surmises, conjectures suppositions which do not flow from the facts of the case, weight of evidence brought on record and law on the subject. The view of the Ld. CIT(A) is quite erroneous in law on the point. 2. Because Sri H.N Rai Income Tax officer 2(3) Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/S 147 of the Act. He had also no authority/jurisdiction to record the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. As per Ground No.2, the Income Tax officer 2(3) Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. He had also no authority/jurisdiction to record the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, and also to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act, as the assessee never filed his returns of income at Ghaziabad in the past and present. The original records of the assessee were with the assessing officer, Agra as the assessee was an old and regular income tax assessee at Agra since long. 4. This ground was raised as Ground No.3 before the ld. CIT(A) also. The ld. CIT(A) held as follows: 5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and legal position in this regard. It is seen that information was received from DDI(lnv.)- 1, Ghaziabad about this agreement entered by the assessee with Shri Satyaveer Singh Dahiya, where factum of advancing ₹ 8,00,000/- by the assessee at interest rate of 2% in the assessment year was mentioned. This agreement is duly notarized and signed by two witnesses. Since reopening of the case is based on this specific information and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no case for questioning the jurisdiction by the assessee. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the assessee s above stand, as taken before the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. He has also referred to section 120(3) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the AO at Ghaziabad had territorial jurisdiction over the matter in terms of section 124(1) of the Act. In support of the impugned orders, for the Department, the following case laws have been relied on: (i) Acorus Unitech Wireless Private Limited vs. Asstt. CIT , W.P. (C) 1954/2013, C.M. Appl. 3721/2013, (Del High Court). (ii) Mitsui and Company India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer and Another , WP (C) 1121/2012 CM No.2447/2012 Del High Court. (iii) Brij Mohan Agarwal vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax , 268 ITR 400, Allahabad High Court. (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Popular Vehicles Services Ltd. , ITA No. 1628 of 2009 High Court of Kerala. (v) CIT vs. India Terminal Connector System Ltd. , ITA No.643/2011 High Court of Delhi. 7. We have heard the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ban Hussian , 82 ITR 821 (SC), has held that it is well settled law that the ITO s jurisdiction in reopening an assessment in section 34/147 depends upon the issuance of the valid notice. If the notice issued is invalid for any reason, the entire proceedings would become void for want of jurisdiction. The said judgment is on page 30-32 of the paper book. The ITAT Allahabad Bench in the case of ITO v/s. Smt Shashi Agarwal , 7 MTC 494, has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurban Hussain (supra). Then, the Tribunal, Agra Bench, in the case of SN Bhargava v/s ITO, Mathura , vide order dated 14.06.2013, passed in ITA No.58/Agra/2009, for A.Y. 1998-99, held that the AO who has no jurisdiction over the assessee had recorded the reasons for issuing of notice u/s 148 and the same were supplied to the AO, having jurisdiction over the assessee. The AO having jurisdiction over the assessee had not recorded the reasons of his own for forming his belief and issued the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. On the same reason as recorded by the AO, the notice issued u/s 148 was held to be not valid. The said judgment is at pages 33-38 of the paper book. Further, the ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
