9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initio for want of jurisdiction of the ld. AO and for want of proper service of notice at the correct address of the assessee within the reasonable time. Accordingly, we hold that the reassessment framed by the AO is hereby quashed as void ab-initio. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1226/Hyd/2019 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2020 - Shri C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For the Revenue : Shri Arvindakshan RS ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) 4, dated 19/07/2019, Hyderabad for AY 2010-11. 2. We find that the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment on the ground that a) there was a violation of service of notice u/s 282 of the IT Act within the reasonable time on the assessee, b) there was a violation of service of notice u/s 282 of the Act on the wrong address, c) no tangible material was available with the ld. AO, which would enable the ld. AO to form a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, d) reassessment was made based on the borrowed satisfaction and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as per document at Rs .12,00,000/- (ii) Property admeasuring 175 Sq.Yds situated at Plot No 147 (Part) Prashanti Nagar. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR Dist. for a sale consideration as per document at Rs .12,00.000/- (iii) Property at Plot No. 140 admeasuring 311.77 Sq. Y ds situated Prashanti Nagar, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR Dist. for a sale consideration as per document at RS.33.00,000/- We find that the assessee had duly reported the capital gains arising out of the aforesaid three plots in the original return of income filed on 22/06/2010. Along with the return of income, the assessee has filed the following documents:- a) Computation of total income. b) Self-assessment tax paid challan for ₹ 11,380/-. c) Proof of deposit made in capital gains account scheme of ₹ 3,05,000/-. d) Receipts for expenses incurred incidental to transfer of plots. e) Copy of sale deeds. f) Copy of purchase agreement from Aliens Developers. g) Copy of PAN Card. h) Copy of Form No. 16 Admittedly this return was not selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within six months from the end of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act in connection with property tax assessment done on the property purchased by the assessee. 10/08/2015 Date of filing of return of income by the assessee for AY 2015-16 mentioning the changed address i.e. Mani Residency address. 09/07/2016 Date of filing of return of income by the assessee for AY 2016-17 mentioning the changed address i.e. Mani Residency address. 28/06/2017 Date of filing return of income for AY 2017-18 by the assessee with new address i.e. Mani Residency address. 11/08/2017 Letter addressed b y the assessee to ITO, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad objecting to the service of notice u/s 148 on 20/07/2017 beyond the limitation period mentioned in section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 16/08/2017 Letter of ITO, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad addressed to assessee stating that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not barred by limitation informing that the notice has been validly issued within the due date i.e. 31/03/2017, but, it was served on the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the validity of reopening of assessment. 18/10/2017 Letter of ITO, Ward 13(3) to assessee asking for certain details. In the said letter, the AO mentioned that neither PAN was mentioned nor the fact of assessee being employed with Naval Force was mentioned in the sale deed and, hence, ITO, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad was being territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Accordingly, AO defended the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as valid. 10/11/2017 Pursuant to transfer of records by ITO, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad to ITO, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad, ITO, Ward 13(3) issued letter dated 10/11/2017 asking for certain details in connection with scrutiny assessment proceedings of AY 2010-11 in the case of the assessee together with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 10/11/2017. 14/11/2017 Assessee s letter ITO, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad filing objections to the reasons recorded together with the chronology of events leading to the sale of property and its related civil court disputes to drive home the point that the property sold is a disputed one, which would not fetch fair m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a clinching evidence to drive home the point that the changed address had been duly incorporated in the PAN Portal of the IT Department, which alone would have enabled the ITO (Intelligence) 5, Hyderabad to address to the assessee in the new address seeking for certain information. 4.3 In view of the aforesaid observations, it can be safely concluded that there was no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act in terms of section 282 of the Act at the correct address of the assessee within a reasonable period of time by the revenue. When the assessee is assessed to tax by ITO, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad and has been having regular correspondence with that Officer and returns of income for AYs, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were duly filed mentioning new address of the assessee with ITO, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad, there is no reason as to why ITO, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad should exercise jurisdiction over the assessee by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In any case, ITO, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad does not have jurisdiction over the assessee to trigger the initiation of the reassessment proceedings after recording of reasons for reopening of assessment. Hence, the reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
