9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 127. In the instant case, none of this has happened. It is therefore a case where the ITO Ward 4, Bharatpur has proceeded ahead and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to the respective assessee when the jurisdiction over the respective assessees doesn’t lie with him and lies with other Assessing officers at Delhi and Allahabad, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. In absence of valid jurisdiction, the issuance of notice u/s 148 by ITO Ward 4, Bharatpur is bad in law and the consequent proceedings u/s 147 are vitiated and are liable to be quashed - notice issued u/s 148 by the ITO Ward 4, Bharatpur was without jurisdiction and the consequent assessment order passed u/s 147 r/w 144 is bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 7216/Del/2017, ITA. No. 7217/Del/2017, ITA. No. 7174/Del/2017 And ITA. No. 1033/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM For The Assessee : Shri Rajeev Saxena (Adv.) For The Revenue : Shri J.C.Kulhari (JCIT) ORDER PER BENCH: These are four appeals filed by the respective assessees against the orders of ld. CIT(A), Alwar of even date i.e 25.10.2017 for AY 2008- 09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence not liable to be taxed in that year and hence no return of income was filed. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in initiating the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Firstly, we will take up the ground no. 2 wherein the assessee has challenged the issuance of notice U/s 148 by the ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur stating that the notice has been issued without valid jurisdiction, as he is not the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Similar ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing officer has been taken in other three cases as well. 5. It was submitted that the assessees have jointly inherited the property situated at Dushhera Road, Sarai Gajra, Dholpur, Rajasthan, later known as Asha Hotel and the same was sold on 18.03.2008. It was submitted that jurisdiction over the respective assessees lie with other Assessing officers and merely because the property was situated at Dholpur, Rajasthan, the Assessing Officer at Bharatpur is not vested with the jurisdiction over the assessees unless there is change of address in PAN data or there is an order issued U/s 127 of the Act transferring the jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their individual hands to the extent of respective share in the property. Alternatively, all the cases could have been centralized by the Revenue by passing an order u/s 127 of the Act. In the instant case, none of this has happened. It is therefore a case where the ITO Ward 4, Bharatpur has proceeded ahead and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to the respective assessee when the jurisdiction over the respective assessees doesn t lie with him and lies with other Assessing officers at Delhi and Allahabad, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. In absence of valid jurisdiction, the issuance of notice u/s 148 by ITO Ward 4, Bharatpur is bad in law and the consequent proceedings u/s 147 are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. 9. The Coordinate Delhi Bench decision in case of Ranjeet Singh vs ACIT (supra) also supports the case of the assessees wherein it was held as under:- 7. From these facts it is clear that the assessee was assessed to income-tax in Delhi and as on 30th March, 2005, the ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, did not have any jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, is without jurisdiction. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcle 21(2), New Delhi and in fact the file containing notice under s. 148, reply filed by the assessee, information received by the ITO, Ghaziabad, etc. was transferred to the AO having jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the senior Departmental Representative to plead that after assessment the assessee cannot take objection to the jurisdiction. In this case the assessee had taken objection to jurisdiction from very beginning of s. 147 proceedings. She has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. Anr. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In this case the Chief CIT assigned jurisdiction to the Asstt. CIT, TDS, Circle 21(2) to deal with all the matters relating to all sections contained in Chapter XVII in respect of all persons, who were or could come within the jurisdiction of Jt. CIT. The decision of this case is also not applicable as neither the Chief CIT nor the CBDT have assigned jurisdiction over the assessee to the ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad. Another case relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.R. Industries Ltd. vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad jurisdiction over the assessee s cases and who were competent to issue a notice in terms of s. 148 of the said Act. It may also be pointed that pursuant to the issuance of impugned notice under s. 148 of the said Act on 28th March, 2003, when the notice under s. 142(1) was issued to the assessee in December, 2003, the assessee by her reply dt. 21st Jan., 2004, indicated that her AO was not located in Ludhiana, but was the ITO at New Delhi. 5. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of the facts available on the record and, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the present case. No interference with the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed. 11. In light of above discussions and respectfully following the decisions referred supra, the notice issued u/s 148 by the ITO Ward 4, Bharatpur was without jurisdiction and the consequent assessment order passed u/s 147 r/w 144 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed in all these cases. 12. Having decided the jurisdictional issue, other grounds of appeal have become infructious and the same are hereby dismissed. In the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
