9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons of having belief of escapement of income and also did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the assessment framed by him without assuming a valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessee, was bad in law. We hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment by the ITO, Kurukshetra was without jurisdiction, therefore, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law and the consequent assessment framed by the DCIT (International Taxation) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL For the Assessee : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate For the Revenue : Dr. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.03.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) 43, New Delhi, has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of framing the assessment at Rs. 71,49,15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration the detailed submissions made and various judgments relied upon by the appellant during the course of assessment appellate proceedings. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions / disallowances without any cogent reason or legal sustainable basis. 9. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the assessee inter alia has contested the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for reopening of the assessment by the ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra and thereby the very validity of the re-assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that an AIR / CIB information was received with the office of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3, Kurukshetra that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 70,03,000/- in his bank account during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. He, on the basis of the said information issued letters to the assessee to provide the source of the aforesaid deposit alongwith other details of related information. The assessee replied to the various lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 148 of the I.T. Act was bad in law as the very assuming of jurisdiction by the ITO, Kurukshetra to reopen the assessment was without jurisdiction and since the very reopening of the assessment was void-ab-initio, therefore, the assessment framed u/s 147 was bad in law. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has brought our attention to the copy of the letter dated 18.1.2016 issued by the ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra asking for the details relating to the deposit of Rs. 70,03,000/- in the bank account of the assessee during the F.Y. 2088-09. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 9.3.2016 received in the office of the ITO, Ward-3 on 10.3.2016, wherein, the assessee apart from pleading that the assessee owned agricultural land has mentioned that he went to Spain in F.Y. 2003-04 and came back in F.Y. 2008-09. A similar query was raised by ITO, Ward -3, Kuruksehtra vide letter dated 25.3.2015, whereupon, the assessee vide reply dated 26.6.2015 had categorically again mentioned that he was to Spain on Work Permit fromJune 2004 to 15.10.2008. Another reply dated 23.6.2015 to this effect was given by the assessee whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (International Taxation)Gurgaon on the directions of the JCIT, Kurukshetra. 8. Another relevant fact on the record is that the DCIT (Intentional Taxation) Gurgaon continued with the proceedings from the stage it were discontinued / transferred by ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra. The DCIT (Intentional Taxation) neither recorded reason of form the belief of escapement of the income for the assessment year under consideration, nor did he issued any notice u/s 148 of the Act. In this case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra was without jurisdiction, hence, no reliance can be placed on such a notice issued by an officer having no jurisdiction to do so.The concerned Assessing officer, who was having jurisdiction to frame the assessment, apparently, did not record reasons of having belief of escapement of income and also did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the assessment framed by him without assuming a valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessee, was bad in law. 9. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has placed reliance on the following case laws to stress upon the point that the notice issued for reopening of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly liable to be quashed. 12. So far as the argument of the Ld. DR that the ITO, Dasuya had transferred the case to DCIT (International Taxation ), Chandigarh and, hence, there was no requirement of issuing of fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act as per the provisions of section 127 (4) of the Act is concerned, we do not find any force in the above contention of the Ld. DR. Firstly, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the ITO, Dasuyawere without jurisdiction and the same were void abinitio, hence, any transfer of such void proceedings to the Assessing officer of competent jurisdiction did not validate his action and the proceedings .. 11. Identical view has been taken by the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITA NO. 720/Chd/2018 dated 16.05.2019 in the case of The JCIT (OSD), Chandigarh Vs. Shri Balwant Singh Julta, U.K. 12. The Ld. DR could not show any case law laying down any contrary proposition of law. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment by the ITO, Kurukshetra was without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
