9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sanction of Principal CIT, Bathinda for re-opening u/s 147/148 is mechanical in nature, invalid and bad-in-law being given to two separate assessing officers, side by side and assessment is bad-in-law. 3. That Id. A.O 2(1), Bathinda blown hot & cold being passed the order to meet the objection on Jurisdiction dtd 16-8-17 against appellant, but also suo-motto transferred the case to A.O 1(3), and the assessment is bad-inlaw. 4. That the order of A.O 1(3) is bad-in-law, when the jurisdiction of appellant lies with A.O 2(1) also or with two A.Os. 5. That the re-opening u/s 148 by A.O 1(3), Bathinda merely on the basis of Cash deposit is invalid, void-abinition, bad-in-law and is a borrowed satisfaction. 6. That the assessment framed by A.O (1)3, Bathinda is bad-in-law, invalid and void-abinitio being no order is passed to primary objections raised by the appellant. 7. That assessment made by A.O 1(3), Bathinda is bad-in-law being it gave no finding on the reasons recorded u/s 147. 8. That the Id. A.O 1(3) made the assessment with dwindling mind and is bad in law being firstly he holds that HUF is formed when sale proceeds of land are deposited in HUF bank A/c, having PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account, as well as furnish the calculation of the Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG", for short) on sale of the land in question. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that he had sold his share [194,3/8 biswa part] in land [i.e 33 Bigha - 12 Biswa Kacha Nehri Berani] situated at Patti Jhutti within the Municipal Committee limits of Bathinda (Code No. 0002 Sr. No. 0224), and his share worked out at Rs. 70,84,580/- . In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that the deposits in his bank account were out of his share of sale proceeds of the aforesaid land in question. Qua the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda, the assessee vide his letter dated 24.07.2017 objected to the same, inter alia, on the ground, that as the jurisdiction to issue the Notices u/ss. 148 & 142(1) was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, therefore, those issued by the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda being without jurisdiction did not have any sanctity of law. Also, the assessee vide his aforesaid reply dated 24.07.2017 (filed on the same date with the ITO, Ward 2(1), Bathinda) brought to his notice that he was also in receipt of a Notice u/s 142(1) from the IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee against the notice issued u/s 148 cannot be accepted and the assessment proceedings shall continue. Accordingly, you are requested to submit your ITR and co-operate in the completion of assessment. The case is adjourned for further hearing to be made on 25.08.2017. Sd/- Place : Bathinda (Sham Lal Gupta) Date : 16.08.2017 Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bathinda" Also, the assessee vide his letter dated 30.08.2017 objected to the issuance of Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda. 4. On merits, it was the claim of the assessee, that as the land in question was an inherited property, i.e, property which he a/w his two brothers and his mother had inherited after the death of his father, viz. Shri. Durga Parasd, who in turn had inherited the same from his forefathers, therefore, the same belonged to his HUF. Observing, that the assessee could not substantiate to the hilt his claim as regards the existence of the HUF by providing any proof, i.e, PAN, bank statement, balance sheet, details of its members etc., the A.O on the basis of his exhaustive deliberations rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee and, held him persona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice shall be issued by an A.O u/s 148 of the Act, unless the sanctioning authority therein prescribed is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the A.O that it is a fit case for issue of such notice. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as in the present case, the A.O, i.e, the ITO, Ward 1-(3), Bathinda, had issued the Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 prior to obtaining the requisite approval/sanction of the Pr. CIT, Bathinda, which admittedly as stated by him in the assessment order was obtained only as on 29.03.2017, therefore, he had invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. On the basis of his aforesaid contention, it was, inter alia, submitted by the ld. A.R that as the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 was based on invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, viz. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, as the Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 was issued by him pre-empting the grant of the requisite sanction u/s 151 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda, which as per the records was only granted as on 29.03.2017, therefore, the same could not be sustained and, on the said count itself was liable to be vacated. Apart from that, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Pr. CIT, Bathinda on 29.03.2017, had issued the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2017 (Page 1 of "APB"). On being confronted with the fact that the A.O passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017, i.e, the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda had categorically stated in his assessment order that the Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2017 with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT, Bathinda vide his office letter No. Pr. CIT/BTI/Tech/151/2016-17/3749, dated 29.03.2017, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that the said approval was given in context of the "reasons to believe", dated 24.03.2017 recorded by the ITO, Ward II(1), Bathinda, on the basis of which the latter had thereafter issued Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2017. On a further query by the bench as to whether the ITO, Ward- 1(3), Bathinda, i.e, the jurisdictional A.O who had framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 had prior to issuance of the Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 obtained the statutory sanction of the prescribed authority, i.e, the Pr. CIT, Bathinda, as envisaged in Sec. 151 of the Act, the ld. D.R failed to reply to the same. It was, however, submitted by the ld. D.R, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 148, dated 29.03.2017. Admittedly, the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda had prima facie complied with the requisite conditions for reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act, but the fact that he was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, was a bottle neck in framing of the assessment by him, therefore, the case records of the assessee, as stated by him in his aforesaid letter dated 16.08.2017 (supra), were transferred to the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, i.e, the A.O having jurisdiction in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, as noticed and purposively culled out by us hereinabove, the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda, vide his order dated 16.08.2017 (supra), while disposing off the objections of the assessee qua the reasons recorded u/s 147 of the Act, had observed, that the case as per the request of the assessee was being transferred to the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda a/w the requisite information available with his office, vide a letter No. 547, dated 08.08.2017, and had further directed that both the files available with the officers be clubbed for framing the assessment. Thereafter, as is the fact borne from the record, the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, i.e, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort the claim of the ld. D.R that the A.O, i.e. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, prior to issuance of Notice u/s 148 had obtained the requisite sanction from the Pr. CIT, Bathinda, therefore, we are constrained to proceed with on the said factual matrix. Admittedly, the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 only makes a reference of the sanction obtained from the Pr. CIT, Bathinda vide his office letter No. Pr. CIT/BTI/Tech /151/2016-17/3749, dated 29.03.2017. Although, at the first blush, the reference of the aforesaid sanction of the Pr. CIT, dated 29.03.2017 in the body of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, as claimed by the ld. A.R, would appear to be in context of the reopening of the assessee's case by the A.O framing the assessment, i.e, ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, but after considering the facts as are discernible from the records, we are of the considered view that the same is in context of the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2017 that was issued by the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda. Backed by the aforesaid facts, we hold a conviction that there can be two set of situat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
