9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing of appeal without considering written submission filed before him on 02.02.2016. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in ex-parte order Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming action of Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings on the basis of reason recorded u/s.148(2) as reassessment proceedings was invalid, illegal and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in ex-parte order Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming action of Assessing Officer in not allowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s.148/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.04.2014, wherein the AO adopting the segment rate/stamp value pf the property in question as the sale consideration u/s.50C of the Act determined the LTCG at Rs.21,38,420/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the mater in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Apropos the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer, the same was assailed by the assessee both qua the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating the re-assessment proceedings; as well as declining of his claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on merits. However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the view taken b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessing Officer wherein, there was no whisper of recording of any "reasons to believe" prior to issuance of the notice u/s.148 of the Act. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was vehemently submitted by the Ld. AR that as the Assessing Officer had blatantly failed to comply with the statutory obligation of recording of the "reasons to believe" prior to issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by him for reopening the case of the assessee and framing the consequential assessment vide his impugned order passed u/s.148/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.04.2014 was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be quashed on the said count itself. In support of his aforesaid conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal on 31.03.2022. On a perusal of the assessment records we have come across the Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 12.06.2013 issued by the AO, which for the sake of clarity is reproduced as under: However, neither the "reasons to believe" were found placed in the assessment record, nor any reference of the same having been recorded prior to issuance of the Notice u/s 148, dated 12.06.2013 is found mentioned in the "order sheet". On a perusal of the records, we find that the assessee vide his letter dated 12.02.2016 had, inter alia, applied to the Assessing Officer for a certified copy of the "reasons to believe" u/s. 148(2) of the Act. Also, we find that the Ld. DR pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal for producing the assessment re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons to believe" prior to issuance of notice u/s.148, dated 12.06.2013 would go to the very root of the validity of jurisdiction assumed by him u/s. 147 of the Act. Our aforesaid conviction can safely be gathered from a perusal of the sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act, which reads as under: "(2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so." Our aforesaid view, i.e., the absence of recording of "reasons to believe" by the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of Notice u/s. 148 would render the jurisdiction assumed by him for reopening the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act and resultantly the consequential assessment so framed as invalid, is supported by the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice is to be reflected from reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was therein held that if the reasons are not recorded, there is no valid assumption of jurisdiction and subsequent proceedings are vitiated. (D) Baldev Singh Giani Vs. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 266 (P & H.) In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the requirement of recording of "reasons to believe" enshrined u/s. 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer. Observing, that the assessment record did not contain reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Hon'ble High Court held that the notice of reassessment proceedings had to be treated as nullity. 9. On the basis of our aforesaid deliberati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
