9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circle 23(1). The I.T.O. Ward 1(5) Faridabad, on receipt of certain information, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the records of the assessee were transferred to ACIT Circle 23(1), New Delhi who vested with the jurisdiction of the assessee. Eventually, the proceedings culminated into the order u/s 143(3)/147 on 29.12.2008. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee took as many as 11 grounds of appeal. One of the grounds raised by the assessee relates to nonservice of notice u/s 148. Before Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee was filing returns of income in New Delhi for the last more than eight years. The assessee had never filed return of her income at Faridabad. Therefore, the assessee was not aware of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No.3, 4 5. 4. Before us the Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that notice u/s 148 was not issued by the A.O. having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee nor the reasons were recorded. The notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O. Ward 1(5), Faridabad and thereafter, the case was transferred to the A.O. The completion of assessment on the basis of reopening of assessment by the A.O. at Faridabad having no jurisdiction over the assessee is bad in law. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Anjil Khosla in I.T.A. No. 838/2008 dated 01.09.2008, CIT Vs Anjali Dua 219 ITR 183 (Del.) and ITAT decision in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs ACIT 120 TTJ 517. Since the notice u/s 148 was not issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1996-97. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the A.O. at Ludhiana issued notice u/s148 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. The decision of ITAT was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Since the issue is covered by the decisions referred to above in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the A.O. on the basis of assessments reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 by the A.O. at Faridabad is bad in law. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment. 6. Since, we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the Revenue s appeal and the C.O. is in support of the order of Ld. CIT(A), the CO filed by the assessee is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
