9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi who had not validly assumed jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Swati Talwar, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi dated 28.06.2023 for the AY 2011-12. Assessee raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 28.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as impugned appellate order ) is erroneous, arbitrary, without jurisdictional, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made by Income Tax officer, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as Ld. AO or Jurisdictional AO ) u/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act in case of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/-on account of cash deposit made during the impugned financial year being treated as unexplained money. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prescribed under Section 151 of the Act. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) further erred in law in deciding the appeal on merits only without appreciating the fact that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was neither issued nor served on the assessee whereas it is being a mandatory requirement before passing any order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessment order passed without issue of such notice deserves to be quashed as failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) render the reassessment void. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 148 dated 30/03/2018 issued by Ld. AO, Ward 65(5), New Delhi is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said notice was issued by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Ld. AO, Ward 65(1), New Delhi did not have jurisdiction over the assessee as per provisions of the law and the related Notification No. 70/2014 dated 13/11/2014 (applicable from 15/11/2014) and thus, the assessment order framed u/s 144/147 of the Act pursuant to such invalid notice is bad in law and void-ab- initio and liable to be quashed. 11. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking provisions relating to unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. 5. On perusal of page 7 of Paper Book it is observed that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018 was issued by ITO, Ward 69(1), Delhi for reopening of assessment of the assessee. Later on the case was transferred to the ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, by way of letter dated 12.11.2018 by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi for completion of reassessment. It is very much clear that at the time of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi he has no jurisdiction over the assessee as the jurisdiction over the assessee was vested with ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi for reopening of assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over the assessee i.e. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, had issued any notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 28.12.2018 by ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon on the basis of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by ITO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 have been recorded by ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad. Ld. DR, however, submitted that AO was having jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on transfer of the case from ITO, Noida. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that reasons for reopening of the assessment have been recorded in this case by ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida, who was having no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. When assessee filed letter before ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida on 07.09.2017 stating therein that return filed originally may be treated as return having filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and is also supported by copy of acknowledgment of return filed originally, the ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida transferred this case to ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad, vide letter dated 07.09.2017 (PB 10). The AO while completing the assessment in this case has taken the shelter of provisions of section 129 of the Act. However, the said provision is not applicable because it is a matter of assumption of valid jurisdiction in the matter or to validly initiate the reassessment proceedings against the assessee. It is not a case of succession to exercise jurisdiction by one ITO to another ITO. Since, reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
