9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of AIR/NMS information about cash deposits by the Assessee. Subsequently, ITO Ghaziabad vide letter dated 25.07.2016 transferred the records to ITO, Hapur as the jurisdiction over the assessee was with ITO, Hapur. Thereafter, ITO, Hapur proceeded to complete the assessment without even recording reasons to believe stipulated in section 147 or issuing any notice u/s 148 of the Act and continued the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 vide order dated 31.08.2016 on the basis of reasons recorded by ITO, Ghaziabad. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hynoup Food Oil Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [ 2008 (7) TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter case was taken up for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.08.2016 and the total income was determined at ₹ 21,35,392/- and agricultural income of ₹ 55,200/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.12.2018 in Appeal No.621218571140217 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A)is bad in both in the eyes of law and oh facts. (2) That on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng jurisdiction u/s 148 and recording reasons without having valid jurisdiction over the case of the appellant (ii) That return of income for assessment year under consideration was filed in Hapur and the case of the appellant being regularly assessed in Hapur, the notice u/s 148 issued by ITO, Ward 2(4), Ghaziabad is illegal, without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio. (iii) That the reasons recorded by ITO, Ward 2(4), Ghaziabad are without jurisdiction and non-est. (iv) That notice u/s 148 having been issued by non jurisdictional assessing officer ITO, Ward 2(4), Ghaziabad, the approval u/s 151 to the said notice is mechanical and without verification of basic jurisdictional fact. 2. That the reasons to believe u/s 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC). It was therefore submitted that the additional ground of appeal be admitted and appropriate order be passed in the interest of rendering substantial justice. 6. On the issue of admissibility of additional ground, the Learned DR strongly objected to the plea for admission of additional ground. 7. Having heard the rival submissions on the admission of additional ground after considering the submissions made by the Learned AR and following the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the additional ground raised in the present appeal being a legal ground which goes to the root of the matter needs to be admitted. I therefore admit the additional ground. 8. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid contention he relied on the order of ITAT Agra Bench in the case of S.N. Bhargawa vs. ITO 147 ITD 306 and other decisions. 9. Ld DR on the other hand did not controvert the submissions made by Ld AR but however supported the order of lower authorities. 10. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is as to whether the reassessment framed by the AO i.e ITO, Hapur in pursuance to a notice dated 31.03.2016 u/s 148 of the Act, issued by Income-tax Officer, Ghaziabad who did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, is valid one. 11. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act authorizes and permits the AO to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iver by the assessee [CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 ITR 54 (Bom.) 12. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that Assessee is filing the return of income before ITO, Hapur and the ITO, Hapur had jurisdiction over the assessee. The ITO, Ghaziabad who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of AIR/NMS information about cash deposits by the Assessee. Subsequently, ITO Ghaziabad vide letter dated 25.07.2016 transferred the records to ITO, Hapur as the jurisdiction over the assessee was with ITO, Hapur. Thereafter, ITO, Hapur proceeded to complete the assessment without even recording reasons to believe stipulated in section 147 or issuing any notice u/s 148 of the Act and continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
